Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Reigate Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a second time, and committed.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION)

Address for "Return showing (a) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1918, been registered at the Home Office; (b) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (c) Particulars of cases in which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 47, of Session, 1918)."—[Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.

Address for "Return showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by Vehicles in Streets, Roads, or Public Places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1918 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 44, of Session 1918)."—[Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER (IMPORTS).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the reduced restric-
tion upon the exportation of paper from Scandinavia of a kind which does not come from portions of the Empire, over thirty British paper mills have now closed down and thousands of men and women have been thrown out of work; that nearly a hundred other mills are working on short time and may close any day, involving the risk of a further 20,000 men and women being thrown out; and whether he proposes to take any action in regard thereto?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I am not aware what restrictions, if any, exist on the exportation of paper from Scandinavia, neither have I heard of any recent removal of any such restrictions. If the hon. Member refers to the reduced restriction on imports of paper into this country, I am not in a position to add anything at present to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. My right hon. Friend has instituted some further inquiries and the hon. Member may rest assured that the question of employment in the paper mills is receiving careful consideration.

Mr BENNETT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the stagnation in the paper-making industry in Kent which has followed the recent reduction in the restrictions on the imports of foreign paper, and of the closing down of several paper mills in that county; and whether he will consider the advisability of postponing the removal of the remaining restrictions contemplated at the end of April?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So far as time has permitted the making of inquiries, the reduction in restrictions has not been followed by the closing of mills in Kent. Mills in that county are in some instances short of orders, but there are certain conspicuous exceptions to this: on the whole, the paper industry in Kent is not suffering to the same degree as in other parts of the country. The position of the paper industry is under consideration.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have had representations from every single paper mill in my Constituency quite contrary to the answer he has given?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I could not be aware of what representations the hon. Gentleman had made to him. My information,
as I have said, is not entirely up-to-date, because I have not been able to make the inquiries in the short time I have had.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman make his inquiries up-to-date as the whole of the representations are quite contrary to what he has stated.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be very much of a help if the two hon. Members who have so much information would give it to me.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether there are still restrictions on the use of paper by the Government?

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of paper mills in Scotland have been closed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Captain SHAW: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 75 per cent, of pre-war paper imports which is allowed in March and April is 75 per cent, of the amount imported in two months of the pre-war period or 75 per cent, of the amount imported in four months of the pre-war period?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The 75 per cent, of pre-war paper imports which is allowed in March and April is 75 per cent, of the amount imported in two months of the pre-war period, and not in four months.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of this paper now being imported is coming from neutral countries, and will he recommend for the consideration of the Government the industries of this country being protected against the importation of such paper from neutral countries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole matter is under consideration.

Captain SHAW: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, before he decided to remove restrictions on imports of manufactured paper, he ascertained from the paper trade whether the trade would be able to reduce the price of home-produced paper when given a sufficient supply of raw material to increase their output?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Inquiries were made and conferences were held, all of which
went to show that even with unrestricted import of raw material mills could not produce paper at prices quoted for imported paper for several months to come.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: May I ask from whom he inquired, and whether it was not stated that the prices could be reduced?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The inquiries were made by the Paper Controller. I did not say the prices could not be reduced: I said they could not be reduced to the prices quoted for imported paper.

Sir J. HOPE: But who were the inquiries made to by the Controller?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I imagine it was to the paper manufacturers, but I will find out.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there any reason why paper should not receive the same protection as that afforded to all other industries?

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASS BOTTLES.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the shortage of glass bottles; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent some of our export trades being hampered through lack of glass containers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that, although considerable efforts have been and are being made to develop the production of glass containers by British factories, the output is at present insufficient to meet requirements. Licences are, therefore, being granted to import glass containers when there is evidence that adequate supplies of British-made goods are not available, and in the consideration of applications for licences particular attention is given to the requirements of the export trades.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

INDENTURED APPEENTICES.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps the Government are taking about the indentured apprentices-who were called up during the War; and whether the Government proposes to ex-
tend the period of apprenticeship and to make up to men's earnings the wages of the apprentices in order that they may be efficiently trained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): A scheme for assisting these persons, whose apprenticeship was interrupted by service in His Majesty's Forces, to complete their apprenticeship, has been approved by the Government. Among other provisions, the scheme provides:

(i.) For a reduction of the unexpired period of apprenticeship;
(ii.) For a State Grant to the apprentice of one-third the journeyman's rate as soon as the apprentice has reached the age when, but for the War, his apprenticeship would have been completed;
(iii.) For such contributions on the part of the employers as will, with the State's allowance, make up the apprentice's wages to not less than three-quarters of the journeyman's rate for the first year of training, and to not less than five-sixths for the second year;
(iv.) For the scheme embodying these and other provisions, to be drawn up by national industrial councils or by other committees representative of the industry;
(v.) For a maintenance allowance, under certain conditions, to allow of training in a technical school or institution.
Negotiations with such councils and committees are now being carried on, and I am glad to say that I hope to reach agreement in the near future.

Sir SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask if that information will be widely spread, so that those affected may know of it?

Mr. WARDLE: I will endeavour to take such steps as will make it known.

ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a large number of men who are serving and who are proprietors of one-man businesses have found it, since the signing of the Armistice, very difficult to retain the support of their customers; and whether, in consequence of the hardship that attaches to such men, he will agree to their being released from military service provided
that they are able to obtain a certificate from the clerk to the local tribunal and another from the local advisory committee indicating that, in their opinion, such men should be immediately released in order to carry on their businesses, in view of the fact that many of these concerns will otherwise have to be closed in consequence of the increasing competition of larger firms?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It is regretted that the Regulations at present in force governing eligibility for demobilisation cannot be altered. There may be instances of hard cases, but it is not desirable to make individual distinctions. Men who are eligible under current instructions are being demobilised as rapidly as circumstances permit. As I stated, however, on Tuesday last, I hope as time advances it may be possible to make more liberal the construction placed upon compassionate cases.

Sir F. HALL: Is the Government not prepared to leave a matter of this importance in the hands of the tribunals and local committees—cannot you rely upon them?

Captain GUEST: The whole question of these one-man businesses has been extremely carefully gone into, and it was found impossible, in view of all the circumstances, to extend the exemptions to one-man businesses.

Mr. FRANCE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to include in the compassionate cases some of those one-man business troubles?

Captain GUEST: The latter part of my answer indicates the hope that we shall be able to do so—at a later date possibly.

LANCASHIRE COTTON TRADE (PRICES).

Mr. GOULD: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that although the price of yarn and cloth utilised in the Lancashire cotton trade has declined about 50 per cent, during the past five months no corresponding reduction in the price of the finished product has been evidenced, he will extend the present system of control by his Department to the control of retail prices of commodities necessary to the comfort and use of the poorer classes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is a natural tendency for movements in the retail prices of finished goods to lag behind the corresponding movements in the market prices of the materials. This happens equally whether prices are moving upwards or downwards, and I would remind the hon. Member that at various times during the War it was possible to purchase cotton goods retail below the actual cost of manufacture of the day. My right hon. Friend is convinced that no control of the retail prices of such commodities would be either feasible or beneficial at the present time.

COAL SUPPLY.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Coal Controller agreed to make good losses resulting from the working of collieries from the date on which he assumed control thereof, and that so far he has refused or delayed to do so to any other than those working smithy coal; whether he is aware that profits have been made only by those who can get shipping business to neutral nations at prices ranging from 60s. to 90s. per ton f.o.b. shipping ports, while those to the extent of 60 per cent., who have had to sell their outputs for home consumption only at 25s. to 27s. per ton (free on trucks) at the pit-head, have made losses; and whether he will take steps at once to fix a price for all coal (free on trucks) at the pit, whether for land sale or for shipment business, adequate to cover working cost plus a reasonable percentage on the capital involved, the difference between such fixed prices and the price obtained for neutral and other foreign shipments to be made payable to the Coal Controller to equalise the position of coal masters?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole question of the coal-mining industry is now before the Coal Industry Commission, and until a further Report is received from that Commission it is not proposed to make any changes.

Major HURST: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of coal in Manchester and that the amount of emergency and reserve coal does not now exceed 540 tons; and if lie will say what action he proposes to take thereon?

Mr. BRIGGS: 9.
asked whether his attention has been called to the coal short-
age in Manchester; and whether he can so increase the coal supply for Manchester that householders will receive their full rations?

Major NALL: 10.
asked whether he is aware that the average quantity of coal coming into Manchester for household purposes does not exceed 12,000 tons, and that such quantity is 6,500 tons short of the amount required to provide each house with its minimum ration of 2 cwts. per week; and what action he proposes, to take?

Mr. HAILWOOD: 11.
asked if he is, aware of the shortage of coal which exists in Manchester, due to the fact that during this year the average amount of coal going into the city for household purposes has not exceeded 12,000 tons, whereas for a minimum ration of 2 cwts. per week for each of the 185,836 rateable premises a quantity of 18,583 tons per week is required; and if he will say what steps are being taken to remedy this deficit?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am informed that during the last four weeks the supply of coal to the Manchester area has been at the rate of over 25,000 tons per week, and that this should be more than sufficient to meet current demands.

An HON. MEMBER: Will that supply continue?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot prophesy.

Major NEWMAN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say how many of those employed in the coal-mining and allied industries are now on strike; and whether the action of this section of organised labour is responsible for the further drastic curtailment of the amount of coal available for the householder?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As regards the first part of the question, the number of coal-miners in the whole of the United Kingdom on strike on Saturday morning was 115,127.
With regard to the second part of the question, the recent temporary curtailment in the amount of coal available for domestic supplies in London and the Southern and Eastern counties is due to the fact that, in addition to the 43,000 miners still on strike in Nottinghamshire, a number of miners recently came on strike in Derbyshire and Warwickshire, from all of which areas the coal supplies for these
counties are chiefly drawn. I am glad to say that these men have now returned to work.

Major NEWMAN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Metropolitan householder has, by direction of the Coal Controller, been limited to a supply of 224lb. of coal; is he aware of the inconvenience and hardship during inclement weather that this further limitation of the coal supply is causing, and will he give the reasons that have compelled the Coal Controller to make this Order?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Owing to the stoppage of work in certain Midland coalfields the supply of coal to the Metropolitan area and the Southern and Eastern counties is reduced by over one-third. Relief measures have been taken, but without a drastic curtailment of deliveries to the consumer it is impossible to supply coal to everyone in need. The inconvenience referred to can only affect the larger consumers, many of whom have private stocks of coal on hand sufficient to meet this temporary emergency.

Major NEWMAN: Is that order still in force?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I believe so, but I should not like to give a definite answer without notice.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say if we are exporting coal from this country at present?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that question, but I rather think we are exporting some.

Mr. GILBERT: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there has been a further shortage of coal in London during last week; can he state if there are any reserve stocks held by the Coal Controller for the use of London consumers; and will he state what arrangements have been made during the existing strike so that the small weekly buyers and consumers shall be able to obtain supplies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The restriction of deliveries of coal to private consumers to 2 cwts. in the week has resulted in a sufficiency of coal being available for all small consumers up to date. Relief trains of coal have been worked into London and
other affected districts from coalfields in full work. Certain cargoes of seaborne coal have also been brought into the Thames and other Southern ports. The Controller of Coal Mines still has appreciable reserve stocks of coal at his disposal.

Mr. BILLING: Under these circumstances, may I ask whether the hon. Member will cease the export of coal until the bare necessities of this country are served?

OLIVE OIL.

Sir CHARLES HANSON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present high price of olive oil per ton as compared with pre-war prices, a commodity of great importance to the textile trade, he will consider the advisability of granting more freely import licences, thereby reducing the price per ton and enabling the manufacturers to compete against foreign trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question of admitting olive oil more freely is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the estimated loss to the State of £100,000,000 a year on the present working of the railways was arrived at after crediting the cost of the transport of troops and all other work for the public service; and, if not, whether he can give the figure of estimated profit or loss as thus corrected?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The estimated loss to the State on the working of the railways during the present year was arrived at after taking into account the net value of Government traffic as far as that can at present be estimated.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the Government are bearing the same ratio as other people with regard to costs of carriage?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know how the calculation was made.

Sir F. HALL: I will put a question down on the point.

OVERCROWDED TRAINS (UNDERGROUND LINES).

Mr. GILBERT: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what powers his Department have as to overcrowding on railways from the point of view of public safety and if any action has been taken against the Metropolitan and District Underground Rail-ways and the various tube railways in London on the dangerous overcrowding of their trains on mornings and evenings?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The responsibility for taking such steps as are possible to prevent undue overcrowding on railways rests with the railway companies concerned, who, I think, are doing their best in the present difficult circumstances. The Board of Trade have no statutory powers in the matter.

CLOSED STATIONS (SOUTH LONDON).

Mr. GILBERT: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Rail-Way Executive Committee propose to reopen any of the closed stations in South London on the Victoria to City line; and, if so, can he state what stations will be reopened, and at what date?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am making inquiries and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

INCREASED FARES, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst workers in the outlying districts of Belfast at the increased weekly fares on the railway; whether he is aware that the workmen's train has been changed from 5.10 a.m. to 7.20 a.m. to meet the new conditions of work, but that the fares on this train have been considerably increased in view of the comparatively short distances travelled; and whether he will take action to remedy this grievance?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Gentleman on the 10th March.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether, as the workers are compelled, owing to the lack of housing accommodation in Belfast, to live at considerable distances from the city, he will ask the railway companies to revise the railway fares?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have been in communication with the railway companies, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can he say how long his Department has been in communication with the railway companies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say how long.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the railway companies to speed this matter up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will ask them to give further consideration to it.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of several hon. Members asking that a Select Committee should be set up to consider and report upon what steps should be taken to relieve the present congested condition of transportation in the London area; and whether he can make any statement on this subject?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In view of the fact that a Bill to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications is before the House, my right hon. Friend doubts whether it is desirable that a Select Committee should be set up to deal with one phase of the transportation question.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In view of the inadequacy of the reply and the importance of the question, I will raise the matter at an early date.

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. DEVLIN: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Commission will be set up to inquire into the whole question of the textile industries, the wages, hours, and conditions of labour, and especially the question of woman and child labour in these industrial concerns?

Mr. WARDLE: There are in the textile trades joint bodies of employers and employed who have under consideration the subjects mentioned by the hon. Member. In the woollen, silk, hosiery and elastic web trades, joint industrial councils are at work, and in the cotton trade joint committees of employers and
employed already exist, and the formation of an industrial council is being considered. In the case of linen, jute and flax, trade boards are being set up. In these circumstances I do not think that a Commission is necessary at the present time.

TIMBER SUPPLY (BOX-BOARDS).

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Captain W. R. Crow, late of the Timber Supply Department, has gone to Canada on behalf of Messrs. Spencer, Lock and Company, in order to arrange for supplies of box-boards from Canadian shippers, and that this gentleman before entering the Timber Supply Department had no knowledge of the box-board business; and whether he is aware that the knowledge Captain Crow possesses of this specialised branch of the timber business was acquired in the course of his duties in the Timber Supply Department, and that it was as a result of early information which he received at the Timber Supply Department that severe restrictions were to be placed on the importation of Scandinavian box-boards which led to his exploring the possibility of the Canadian source of supply before private firms were in a position to take similar steps?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Captain W. R. Crow was the head of that section of the Timber Supply Department dealing with the distribution of home-grown and imported timber in this country, and resigned, together with many other members of that section, when permits for the purchase of such timber were abolished, and he could be released. The announcement that all restrictions were to be removed in regard to the importation of all goods from within the British Empire was made in the House of Commons on the 7th March, which was some time after Captain Crow had retired from the Department. No knowledge that such freedom was to be granted was in the possession of the Department prior to the announcement in the House of Commons, and it therefore follows that Captain Crow was not aware before his retirement that the relaxation in question was to be made. The Timber Controller had no knowledge of Captain Crow's arrangements with the firm of Spencer, Lock and Company, other than an announcement in the "Timber Trade Journal," after his retirement, that he had joined that firm.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask whether or not it is the fact that Captain Crow had no knowledge at all of that particular branch of the timber business except what he obtained in his capacity as a servant of the Timber Supply Department?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

POULTRY.

Captain BOWYER: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to facilitate the import of feeding-stuffs for the use of home-grown poultry by providing transport at present engaged in bringing foreign eggs to Great Britain; and also to prevent undue prices being placed upon damaged wheat and other produce used for the feeding of poultry?

The MINISTER OF FOOD (Mr. G. H. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. No further shipments of foreign eggs are being made to Great Britain on Government account; and I may add that plentiful supplies of imported feeding-stuffs are now available. As regards the last part of the question, there is already an Order in existence (the Damaged Grain, Seeds and Pulse (Prices) Order, 1917), which prevents undue prices being placed upon damaged wheat and other produce used for the feeding of poultry.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Captain BOWYER: 37 and 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) whether His Majesty's Government have considered the extent to which the poultry industry of Great Britain may be developed as a source of food supply; whether the organisation now in existence for the promotion of the poultry industry is much inferior to that which has been set up in various foreign countries; and whether he will take steps to provide such State assistance to this industry as will enable British poultry keepers to compete successfully with foreign rivals; (2) whether he has considered, in view of the importance of the home poultry trade, the advisability of setting up a poultry husbandry department for discharged and demobilised sailors and soldiers and others; whether, in the event of such a department being set up, steps will be taken to carry out
research and educational work for large and small owners; and whether, to stimulate the home-grown poultry trade, steps will be taken to prevent foreign eggs, by marking them as such, from competing in public markets with fresh home-grown eggs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AQRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): In the reorganisation of the Board, it is intended that provision shall be made to ensure adequate representation on the staff of poultry experts, and it is proposed to establish a poultry institute for the purpose of education and research. The Board believe by these means, and by the better organisation of the industry, that British poultry keepers will be able more successfully to compete with their foreign rivals. The suggestion that foreign eggs should be marked as such is under consideration.
The Board do not propose generally to encourage discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors, lacking in the necessary experience, to take up small holdings devoted exclusively to poultry keeping, but they are, nevertheless, anxious to encourage the more general keeping of poultry by those who take up small holdings.

Mr. BILLING: If it is found that foreign competition is preventing home development, are the Government prepared to consider a tax on eggs?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The whole matter is under consideration.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (COSTINGS).

Mr. SUGDEN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant to those Government contractors, who in the majority of cases have not been granted such extra cost, the extra costs incurred on such contracts as were entered into before the shortening of hours of labour in certain engineering trades, and which in the majority of cases represent an extra minimum cost of 11 per cent, on production, having in mind the fact that such contracts are subject to costings investigation by the Government Departments concerned?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would suggest that my hon. Friend should address this question to the particular Departments, concerned.

MATCHES (IMPORTATION).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of matches from Norway and Sweden is now permitted by the Match Control Board and the importation of matches from Belgium prohibited; and, if so, will he say why Discrimination is made favourable to neutral countries and prejudicial to an ally the revival of whose industry we are under every obligation to encourage?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The importation of matches from Scandinavia was arranged for at a time when Belgium was in enemy occupation. The question of the restrictions on the importation of matches is now before the Consultative Council on Imports.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Can he give any indication how long it will take to make this investigation; can he not hurry up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee is at this moment considering the matter.

Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is the British match industry encouraged by a tax on all foreign imported matches, and is there any reason why this country should not supply itself with sufficient matches in its need?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

UNCOVENANTED SERVICES (PENSIONS).

Mr. BENNETT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the present scale of pensions for members of the uncovenanted services of India was fixed so long ago as in 1855, in the light of the cost of living and rate of exchange at that time; that the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India recommended in 1912 that the present maximum pension for officers with more than twenty-five years' service should be increased from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000, with special pensions for certain high appointments; that the Viceroy and the Secretary of State, in their
Report on Constitutional Reforms in India, have confirmed this recommendation, and that much hardship is known to exist in consequence of the inadequacy of the present scale of pensions to meet the enhanced cost of living, he will take an early opportunity of redressing this acknowledged grievance?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Secretary of State expects to have the definite proposals of the Government of India on the subject before him very shortly, and will then deal with it without loss of time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

ENLISTED FELLAHEEN (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether about 120,000 Egyptian Fellaheen were enlisted during the War in the Egyptian Labour Corps, Camel Transport Corps, and Donkey Transport Corps; whether complaints were made that the medical service was inadequate; and if he will say how many died on service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): These men were recruited on short term contracts, and the greatest number recorded as serving at any given period was 95,829. The medical arrangements were under the control of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, and the two last parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question should therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Pime Minister what steps are being taken to send out a Commission of Inquiry to Egypt to inquire into the causes of the recent rioting; and will such an inquiry be authorised to inquire into the treatment of the Egyptian fellaheen who enlisted for service as well as into the causes of Moslem unrest?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The attention of His Majesty's Government must for the present be concentrated upon the restoration of law and order in Egypt, and I am unable to state as yet whether a Commission of Inquiry will be dispatched to Egypt or not. But I should like to make it
clear that His Majesty's Government intend to institute at the proper moment the fullest inquiry into the causes of the recent rioting.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible to establish law and order in that country unless you get down to the causes of the present outbreak? Can we put that right first? May I ask for an answer to the question as to whether we shall have this inquiry within the next month?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It must be obvious to the hon. and gallant Member that we must restore law and order before proceeding to the inquiry.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is it necessary to re-establish law and order before appointing a Commission to be ready to go out and take evidence?

Mr. DEVLIN: Cannot we have law and order in every country by basing law on the consent of the governed?

Lieut-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When will my hon. Friend begin to apply Liberal principles?

ENEMY ALIENS.

Sir F. HALL: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any persons of enemy nationality, other than prisoners of war, have been allowed to enter this country since the signing of the Armistice?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply on this subject returned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Elland on 11th March.

Sir F. HALL: Could the hon. Gentleman not say "Yes" or "No" to that question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No; it is a Home Office question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS DETAINED.

Sir F. HALL: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the number of British residents who are now imprisoned or detained in Russia by the Bolshevist Government; what representations have been made to that Government with regard to the treat-
ment and safety of British citizens; and whether any, and, if so, what response has been received to such representations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is that some eight British subjects are understood to be at present imprisoned by the Russian Bolshevik Government. The exact number of British subjects detained is uncertain, but it is not believed to be very large.
As regards the second and third parts of the question, the Russian Bolshevik Government have been informed that the Bolshevik leaders will be held personally responsible for the maltreatment of any British prisoners in their hands. To this the Bolshevik Commissary for Foreign Affairs, M. Tchicherine, has replied denying that these prisoners are being in any way maltreated by the Russian Bolshevik Government.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme with reference to the war in Russia?
The following is the Motion referred to:
"That, in the opinion of this House, British troops should be withdrawn from Russia at the earliest opportunity, peace be made with the de facto Governments of that country, and the blockade raised so as to admit food into Russia."—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Government are not prepared at present to give a day for this purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the action taken by the South Wales miners in urging that we should withdraw our troops from Russia, could not this House have the privilege of debating this question at an early date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we have discussed it pretty often.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have had no chance at all!

CONTAGIOUS ABORTION IN CATTLE (VACCINATION).

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to a Report to the County Council of Lanark, in which it is stated that the results of the work done under the council's scheme for the free vaccination of dairy herds in the county to prevent the spread of contagious abortion are very promising; whether he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to encourage such schemes throughout the country; and whether, as a preventive measure, he will schedule contagious abortion as a notifiable disease?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have not seen the report to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The treatment of abortion by vaccination was initiated, and is strongly advocated by the Board, who issue the anti-abortion vaccine to any veterinary surgeon applying for it. About 30,000 doses were issued last year. The success obtained in Lanarkshire would appear to be due to the services of a whole-time veterinary inspector of the local authority, a system which results in diminished fees. The Board do not consider it desirable that contagious abortion should be made notifiable except in those cases in which the local authority have asked for this to be done.

Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Board did not consider it desirable?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Because without the support of the local authorities it is practically impossible to carry it out, and the results obtained so far have not been at all satisfactory.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Will he circulate the local authorities of the country as to whether they desire to have this made notifiable or not?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that has been done, but I will look into it.

WILLOW LANE ALLOTMENTS, WATFORD.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether a number of allotment-holders have received notice to quit the Willow Lane allotments, Watford, which belong to the urban district council, for what purpose the land is now to be
used; and whether he will take steps to secure such allotment-holders in their holdings?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Notice to quit was given because the land is required by the district council for building under the Housing Scheme. As building, however, may not begin at once, negotiations are in progress with the view to ensure possession to the allotment-holders until such day as building operations are immediate.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT (ARBITRATION).

Brigadier-General WIGAN: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether administrative machinery can be introduced under the Agricultural Holdings Act whereby, in those cases where arbitration was taken before an umpire, the issue of his award should be made compulsory within three months of his having investigated the case?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: An arbitrator under the Act referred to is required to make his award within twenty-eight days after his appointment unless the time is extended by the Board. Frequently an extension of time is necessary without any default on the part of the arbitrator.

AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.

Mr. GILBERT: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his Department has made any financial Grants to the Agricultural Organisation Society; if so what the amounts have been for last year and this year; if any conditions are attached to such Grants; and, if so, what the conditions are?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would ask my hon. Friend if he will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT as it is necessarily long.

The following is the Answer circulated:

The approved Grants to the Agricultural Organisation Society for the financial year 1918–19 are £7,000 from the Food Production Department, £4,000 from the Small Holdings Account, and from the Development Fund a block Grant of £5,800, to-
gether with a Grant equal to four times the amount of the Society's income from, contributions from affiliated farmers' societies during 1918–19, and a Grant equal to the amount of the subscriptions received in the same period. The Agricultural Organisation Society expect to be in a position to claim approximately £20,000 in all from the Development Fund (including the block Grant of £5,800) under this arrangement; but they cannot yet tell the sum precisely. The total Grant will, therefore, be approximately £31,000. The Grants from the Development Fund are not made by the Board and are not borne on their Estimates.

The Grants for 1917–18 were £2,000 from the Small Holdings Account, and £13,240' from the Development Fund.

The conditions under which the Grant from the Development Fund was sanctioned for 1918–19 were:—

(1) That except with the consent of the Board the Society's expenditure shall not substantially depart from the estimate submitted, and that the rate of expenditure for the expenses of the governors and their attendance fees shall be subject to the approval of the Board.
(2) That the Society shall not enter upon any new scheme or extensions of work (even though their initial expenses can be defrayed from their income from the current year), which shall commit it to an increase of expenditure in 1919–20 without the previous consent of the Board.
(3) That the Grant be paid over to the Society in whole or in part at such times as may seem fit to the Board on the understanding that if the actual expenditure incurred by the Society and appearing to be reasonable and necessary is less than the amount so paid over the balance will be returned.
(4) That in carrying out this work the Society shall be careful not to interfere in any way with the work of the constituted authorities in relation to education or food production.
(5) That the Society use its best endeavours to obtain regular contributions from the affiliated farmers' societies by urging them to subscribe ¼d. in the £ on their turnover, and also to make a levy of 6d. per member.
(6) That within a fortnight the Society submit a full Report to the Board on the steps taken to secure contributions by the affiliated farmers' societies and the results, obtained.
859
(7) That the Board shall be represented upon the Executive Committee of the Society by two nominees.

As regards the Food Production Department Grant, the Agricultural Organisation Society are required to send monthly reports of the work done (and annual audited accounts) to the Food Production Department, while the Department hold constant conferences with the officers of the Society.

AILSA CRAIG NATIONAL PROJECTILE FACTORY.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 42.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether, arising out of the taking over of the engine and shell works of the Ailsa Craig Motor Company, Limited, now known as the Ailsa Craig National Projectile Factory, he will state by what means the factory was acquired, and what arrangements have been made with the company and its staff to obtain their assent to the retention of the factory by the Government; and whether any, and, if so, how many of the company's skilled staff are still employed at the factory, and what arrangements he is making to enable the company to reemploy its old staff?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The premises known as the Ailsa Craig National Projectile Factory consist of two parts, the old factory and the new factory. The old factory was taken possession of under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and will probably be returned to its original owners. None of the company's skilled staff are now employed there, and I am not aware what arrangements the company are making to reemploy their old staff. The new factory was built at Ministry expense upon land of which possession was taken for that purpose under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Three of the company's skilled staff are now employed there.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EMPLOYES OUT OF WORK).

Sir K. WOOD: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether in connection with the closing of certain manufacturing depart-
ments at Woolwich Arsenal for stocktaking, certain employés who, as a consequence, are being stood off from work are being directed to apply to the local Employment Exchange for out-of-work donation, whilst others are receiving remuneration in accordance with the regulations of the ordnance factories; and whether he proposes to take such action as will secure equality of treatment for all employés?

Mr. HOPE: I am having special inquiries made on the subject, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

OX HIDES (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the prices paid by tanners for ox-hides are firsts 1s. per lb. and seconds 11d. per lb., while the prices paid to the owners of the hides are firsts 9½d. per lb. and seconds 9d. per lb.; and to what fund are these differences of prices credited?

Mr. HOPE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The differences of prices are credited to the Central Live Stock Fund of the Ministry of Food.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask what is the Central Live Stock Fund?

Mr. HOPE: I think the question should be more properly addressed to the Ministry of Food, but I understand it is a fund of receipts from live stock, and that a contribution such as this is applied in aid of the expenses.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why should hides, and therefore leather goods, be dearer in order that the live-stock stock should be maintained?

Mr. HOPE: If, as I understand, the Ministry of Food—though I do not speak with authority for them—have to control the inside of the animal, they should control the outside too.

MONMOUTHSHIRE (ASSOCIATION WITH WALES).

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the administrative reforms now pending relating
to local government and other matters, the Government are prepared to introduce legislation enacting that Wales shall henceforth always be understood to include Monmouthshire, and thereby render historical association and racial affinity more nearly coincident with geographical delimitation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In my opinion, this matter chiefly concerns Monmouthshire, and any representations that may be made by the inhabitants of that county to the President of the' Local Government Board will, I am sure, be sympathetically considered.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Prime Minister thinks of it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In answering in his name, I have tried to express what he thinks.

LAND REFORM (COMMONS ENCLOSURE).

Mr. CAIRNS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the coming legislation on land reform, he will grant a Return of the number of Commons Enclosure Acts that were passed in the early years of the last century, accompanied with the number of acres so enclosed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Return published in 1914 giving a list of the Enclosure Acts in England and. Wales with the parishes concerned, and the acreages, so far as that information is available.

Colonel THORNE: Will that be printed in the Official Report to-morrow, for the information of all Members of the House?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In the Parliamentary Papers. I will endeavour to have it printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

Major O'NEILL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that only two Members representing Irish constituencies voted for the Second Reading of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill; and whether, in these circumstances, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the further stages of this measure?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

Major O'NEILL: Will the Government proceed with a measure applying to England and Wales under similar circumstances?

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the facts pointed out are the strongest evidence of the necessity of the measure, because the hon. Member for Rathmines (Sir M. Dockrell), who voted for it, represents over 400,000 Southern Unionists?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think it is necessary to go into that debating point.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will this most admirable principle, sanctioned by Parliament, be applied to England and Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "And Wales."]

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have come to no decision in the matter.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the Government have put all the force into carrying this Bill, and the admirable principle has been accepted and sanctioned by Parliament, would it not be well to give its beneficial advantage to England?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that this is only another example of the universal practise of giving Ireland the preference in good things.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland is so unselfish that she is quite willing to give to England those advantages which England confers on her?

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Major O'NEILL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations contained in the Ninth Resolution of the Imperial War Conference of 19l7 to the effect that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the various parts of the Empire should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the termination of hostilities?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that all the Governments of the Empire are pre-occupied with the great problems of Peace and
Reconstruction, and are not in a position to consider general constitutional problems at the moment. The Prime Minister will no doubt have an opportunity, before his Dominion colleagues return to their respective Dominions, of consulting them as to the most convenient time and method for giving effect to this resolution.

CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).

Sir F. HALL: asked the Prime Minister whether intoxicating liquors can now be old in residential clubs up to 11 p.m.; whether working men's clubs are precluded from the sale of same after 9.30 p.m.; and, if so, whether, in view of the hardship that this differentiation involves he will at once take the necessary steps to permit the same regulations for sale up till 11 p.m. to be extended to the working men's clubs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second part in the negative. The rest of the question does not therefore arise.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an enormous number of small clubs particularly are asking for this legislation, and is no attention to be given to the demands that they put forward?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend has grasped my answer. It is that there is no preference between one club and another.

Sir F. HALL: Then will no power be given to these clubs in regard to the purchase of liquor up to eleven o'clock?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer he will see that that question is answered.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Could my right hon. Friend see his way to take the sense of the Houston this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what the question is.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there any reason why these restrictions, so evidently necessary during the War, should be continued to-day; and are the Government in a position to state when the whole of this grandmotherly legislation will be abolished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid not.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the sense of the House will be taken on this question and a Division forced, whether the House wants it or not?

UNITED STATES (LOANS TO EXPORTERS).

Mr. HIGHAM: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Government of the United States intends loaning to American exporters. £200,000,000 of Government money to permit these exporters to sell on credit in Allied and neutral markets, he will state what amount of money this Government proposes to set aside for this purpose that our traders may be in no less an advantageous position?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The hon. Member must bear in mind that the War has taxed the financial resources of the British Government more severely than those of the Government of the United States. The Government are fully alive to the importance of the question of credit facilities, which in the case of some markets is at present, perhaps, the chief problem to be solved in connection with export trade; but the solution cannot be a matter either wholly or mainly for the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do not these credit facilities benefit those who import goods more than they benefit the American exporters?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. HIGHAM: 67.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will reconsider his decision in regard to retaining, for a period of two years or longer, the premises in Kingsway now occupied by Aircraft Departments of His Majesty's Government; and whether, in view of the high rental of these premises, he will consider housing the Departments mentioned in hutments in the outlying areas of London and thus decidedly reduce the cost to the public of housing these Departments?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The decision of the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation to warn the Kingsway tenants of the necessity for retaining the premises requisitioned by the Government in Kings-way for a period of two years, or possibly longer, was arrived at after the fullest consideration of all the facts. The following important public Departments are or are about to be housed in these premises, namely, the Air Ministry, the Commission International de Ravitaillement and the Inland Revenue Department, Super-tax Commissioners and Repayment Branch. The Aircraft Production Department now forms part of the Air Ministry, and I am informed by the latter that it is important that the Aircraft Production Department should carry out its work in close co-operation with the Ministry at the present time.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Mr. HIGHAM: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if the Ministry of Information still exists; and, if so, who is the Minister in charge, what are the present duties of the Ministry, and is it the intention of the Government to continue this Ministry and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome on 27th February.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce legislation at an early date in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee appointed by the National Industrial Council to establish a forty-eight hour week, a legal time-rate for the wages of adults and juveniles, and also a representative industrial council?

Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer which was given on the 26th March to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Hornsey.

RULES OF PROCEDURE (PRIVATE MEMBERS).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to encourag-
ing private Members in the work of initiating legislation, he can see his way to consent to a weekly ballot for the introduction of a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent demonstration in Edinburgh of the counting of votes upon the principle of proportional representation in connection with which 5,000 ballot papers were issued, the result of the poll, conducted under the auspices of the Scottish Education Department, being Bottomley 1, Lloyd George 2, Hogge 3, Balfour 4, Asquith 5; and whether, in view of this result, the Government will reconsider the question of adopting the system of proportional representation in future elections?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and in spite of a result which must commend itself to my hon. Friend, the Government are not prepared to adopt the course suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has that decision been arrived at by any reference to the fact that, by some freak or other, the right hon. Gentleman himself and several of his colleagues were much further down on the poll than I was?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say that we were not influenced by that, nor by the fact that the hon. Member was at the head of it!

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the first trial my hon. Friend was at the other end of the poll?

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that I propose shortly to introduce a Bill giving proportional representation to England and Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman secure sufficient time to carry it through?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid my hon. Friend must use his own energies for that purpose.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman introduced
a Bill and afterwards passed it for Ireland, is it not now desirable that I, a private Member, should propose the same beneficial advantage to this country, and that the right hon. Gentleman should ensure the facilities in the House to get it through?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If we decide to do it, we shall do it ourselves.

Mr. R. McNEILL: In view of the fact disclosed in the question, will the Government refrain from inflicting this treatment on Ireland?

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) did not vote for this beneficial measure for Ireland?

Mr. DEVLIN: I will answer that my self—

WAR INDEMNITIES.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: 61.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be prepared to make a statement on the question of indemnities and the enemy countries' capacity to pay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say when it will be possible to make any new statement on the subject.

Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether Thursday will be allocated for the discussion on this subject in view of the fact of the general desire of the House to discuss it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that I hope it will be possible to discuss it on Thursday, but the Irish Estimates must be disposed of first.

Mr. DEVLIN: Well, it will not be possible then!

Mr. K. JONES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a statement has been published in Paris that the Allies have arrived at the amount of the indemnity, I and could he say whether or not that is; true?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be possible for me to give a direct answer if even that were the case. As a matter of fact, it is not.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when it has been arrived at, and the amount at which the delegates have arrived?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; the House will realise that that is impossible. Treaties would never be made if every point was to be made public beforehand.

Colonel LOWTHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: These supplementary questions are to-day exceeding bounds.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether our delegates at the Peace Conference are considering the imposition of a war indemnity upon enemy countries out of proportion to the colossal expenditure incurred by the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to previous answers given on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to have a cut and dried decision brought into the House of Commons without having an opportunity here of discussing the matter and arriving: at a decision?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I have answered that question about a hundred times. No treaty can be made without first being discussed by the House of Commons.

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. HAYDAY: 62.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what are the amounts of the separate salaries and emoluments for the offices of Minister of National Service and Minister of Reconstruction now being paid to the Minister of National Service and Reconstruction; and whether he will state for what period the present Minister has received the two salaries and emoluments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is £2,000 a year in each case, and to the second part "since the 14th January, 1919."

Earl WINTERTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the salarieB of these Ministers should be put down on the Paper soon?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will inquire about that from my Noble Friend.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. DONALD: 63.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, seeing that engineers are recommending a Channel bridge instead of a Channel tunnel?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what has already been said on this subject.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 64.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is proposed that the Ministry of Ways and Communications shall take over the existing officers and staff of the Munitions Inland Transport Department?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention that the Ministry of Ways and Communications, when established, shall take over the functions of the Munitions Inland Transport Department. The question of the transference of the personnel will be considered when the Ministry of Ways and Communications is approved, and when the exact functions to be performed by the Department are settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

MARRIED PERSONS.

Major HILLS: 65.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received a memorial signed by a large number of Members of different parties in this House urging the Government to introduce legislation in this year's Budget for the alteration of the law in regard to the Income Tax on married persons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

WHITLEY COUNCILS (CIVIL SERVANTS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 55 and 56.
asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is ?willing to receive deputations from Civil servants or retired Civil servants before the Treasury come to any decision with regard to their salaries or pensions; (2) if he is prepared to set up Whitley Councils for Civil servants?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee which has considered this matter have now been approved by His Majesty's Government, and steps are being taken to submit proposals for the establishment of joint bodies for the Administrative Departments to a conference of representatives of Departments and of the Staff Associations to be held early next week. I have already received a deputation from the Association of Retired Civil Servants as to pensions.

EASTER HOLIDAYS (BANKS).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements will be made in the Easter holidays for the banks to be closed on Saturday, 19th April, so that the staffs may have the unbroken holiday from the Thursday to the Tuesday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider the suggestion if the banks put it forward.

OUT-OF-WORK BENEFIT.

Mr. HAYDAY: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour whether an Order has been issued to the effect that all persons in receipt of out-of-work benefit have to produce their food cards for stamping; if so, will he state the reason for this practice; and whether, in view of the fact that this action is resented by and prejudices the position of persons in receipt of this benefit, he will consider the advisability of having this Order withdrawn?

Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The procedure was adopted as a convenient means of checking duplicate claims and verifying the number of children for whom supplementary allowance is drawn, and in some cases also it enables the ages of applicants to be checked. The ration books when presented are stamped with the name of the Employment Exchange, and I understand that this has given rise to some objection. I am considering the question of adopting some different method of marking the ration books.

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: 69 and 70.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether,
having regard to the fact that employers are unable to obtain sufficient skilled and other labour, he will arrange that the numbers, by trades, of those in receipt of our-of-work donations shall be published in the daily Press at least once a week; (2) whether arrangements can be made whereby employers requiring labour and who are unable to obtain it at their local Employment Exchange can be put into touch with the nearest Employment Exchange at which the particular class of labour required is obtainable?

Mr. WARDLE: I do not think that the publication in the Press of particulars of unemployed workpeople, as suggested by my hon. Friend, would have the effect he desires, and, in any event, I do not think that it is necessary. In a very large number of cases, especially with regard to skilled labour, an employer can only select the man he requires when he is in possession of detailed particulars as to the man's qualifications and experience. The specific types and varying grades of labour required by employers are so numerous that it would not be practicable to give, in respect of all persons who are in receipt of out-of-work donation, particulars which would enable employers to make their selection. What is desirable, and in fact necessary, is that employers should notify full particulars of all their labour requirements to the nearest Employment Exchange, the addres of which can be obtained from the local post office. The existing procedure, which has been in operation for some years, provides that where a vacancy cannot be filled by means of persons registered at the Exchange to which the vacancy is notified by the employer, particulars of the vacancy is circulated to other Employment Exchanges in the neighbourhood, and often to all Exchanges in the country, in order that the labour required may be sought from the most likely quarter.

Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Would not automatic publication of these answers every week save frequent questions in this House?

Mr. WARDLE: It might save questions, but it would not have the desired result in the country.

Colonel THORNE: Is it not one of the chief difficulties of the Labour Exchanges
in connection with men out of work that employers will not state definitely what wages they are prepared to pay?

Mr. WARDLE: That certainly is one of the difficulties.

INDUSTRIAL LIFE ASSURANCE.

Mr. DONALD: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, as it is the intention of the Government to hold an inquiry into industrial life assurance, he will state if those directly concerned will have direct representation on the Inquiry, seeing that wages and conditions of the workers come within the scope of such Inquiry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The terms of reference to the Committee and the constitution of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into industrial assurance have not yet been definitely settled, but I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston.

LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Major JAMESON: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will say what is the number of representatives of discharged fighting men's organisations which it is proposed to have on the local advisory committees?

Mr. WARDLE: In November, 1918, local advisory committees were informed that, if they so desired, one representative (or in exceptional cases two) of ex-Service men would be appointed as members of the committees. In almost all cases such representatives have been appointed as members; and, to the extent which I have mentioned, such members will continue to be appointed where the committees concerned desire it. As a rule, these representatives of discharged men are drawn from one or other of the local organisations of ex-Service men.

INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.

Colonel THORNE: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour if the draft Report of the Industrial Conference Provisional Joint Committee can be immediately circulated with the Parliamentary Papers?

Mr. WARDLE: The Report of the Provisional Joint Committee is to be considered by the Industrial Conference on Friday next, and arrangements will be made for it then to be circulated as a Command Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WOUNDED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).

Major NEWMAN: 74.
asked the Pensions Minister whether it is with, his authority that wounded men who are being reexamined by a medical board for adjustment of their pension are asked whether they are working, whether they are following their own trade, what is their present employment, how long they have worked there, whether their disability affects their earning capacity, and whether their work is permanent; whether he is aware that men who answer these questions truthfully have their pensions in many cases reduced, while those who give misleading answers, either themselves or through their employers, have the amount of pension maintained, and if he will give the Act of Parliament that authorises the putting of these questions and the basing of pensions on the answers given?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): Some, though not all, of the questions referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are put by medical boards, who are, however, instructed to inform the man that if he prefers not to answer them he need not. It should be remembered that the medical boards do not only report on the degree of disablement: they advise as to treatment to assist in the man's recovery, and if he is doing work which is prejudicial to his health it is in his interest that the doctors should be in a position to tell him so. I cannot accept the statement contained in the second part of the question. The assessment of pension is based solely on the degree of physical disablement in accordance with the principles laid down in the Warrant. No doubt it is often the case that the man who is in regular work finds his pension cut down when he is next boarded. This is not cause and effect, but two effects springing from the same cause, namely, the improvement in the man's physical condition.

Major NEWMAN: Could the Pensions Board see their way to withdraw this question altogether?

Sir J. CRAIG: No. I think it valuable that we should have the right to ask the men what their work is at the present time. It often assists the board.

Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman issue instructions to the medical boards to tell the men that the questions will not affect their pensions?

Sir J. CRAIG: They are invariably informed that they need not answer any question which they think will prejudice, their case.

DEMOBILISED SOLDIERS (DEPENDANTS).

Major BIRCHALL: 75.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the dependants, other than children, of demobilised soldiers who are being trained for the ministry are eligible for assistance; and, if so, to whom should application be made?

Sir J. CRAIG: This question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but I understand from him that he would be assisted if in putting down the question again my hon. and gallant Friend would make clearer what particular form of training he has in mind.

BLIND SOLDIERS (TRAINING).

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 76.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the training of blind soldiers is carried out at the public expense or by voluntary funds; and, in the latter alternative, what are the reasons why such training is not carried out by his Department at the public expense?

Sir J. CRAIG: Under the Royal Warrant charges in respect of the training of a disabled man may only be paid by the Ministry if they are not otherwise provided for. As it would hardly be possible to improve upon the training given at St. Dunstan's Hostel, and at Newington House, Edinburgh, no occasion arises for making other provision. The present arrangement is to the advantage of the men, as it enables their allowances to be paid to them in full without deduction for the cost of maintenance. A blind man who is single thus receives besides his training and maintenance 27s. 6d. per
week, and a man with a wife and three children receives for himself and his family, and in addition to his own maintenance, £3 3s. a week. These amounts are in addition to the bonus of 5s. a week granted at the conclusion of the training.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling in the country that this training should be done at the public expense without any diminution of benefit to the men?

Sir J. CRAIG: No; I have nothing in any quarter but approval for the training in St. Dunstan's.

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TO ENGLAND.

Mr. MANVILLE: 77.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that communication by wireless telegraph from Atlantic liners is permitted to Cape Race and thence by cable to England, whilst communication direct with England by wireless telegraph is not allowed; that this is causing inconvenience and dissatisfaction; and if he will state if the regulation can now be relaxed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): All restrictions were removed, as soon as the enemy submarines had been handed over, in waters in which danger from mines did not exist. In waters in which such danger did and does still exist, it has only been possible to relax restrictions to the extent of allowing masters and owners to communicate as necessary for the working and safety of the ship, but not to admit telegrams on the private or business affairs of passengers.
When I explain to my hon. Friend that it is solely in the interests of the safety of life and property that these restrictions are still enforced in dangerous waters, in order to reduce the chance of a distress message from one ship being "jammed" by a private message from or to another, he will, I am sure, agree that our policy in this matter is fully justified, particularly when I assure him that, as the sweeping of mines progresses, so will the restrictions be removed from the waters thus rendered safe.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RETIRED LIST (PAY).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 78.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that certain naval officers have been placed on the retired list since 1914 and retained in their appointments and granted the 25 per cent, in addition to active service rate of pay; and if the same treatment should be meted out to all naval officers who have reached the compulsory age for retirement since 1914, such officers being placed on the retired list from the date of reaching the compulsory age and given the 25 per cent, and the emoluments to which they become entitled?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I can only say again that we are in discussion with the Treasury on the matter.

ABSENTEES (POLICE REMUNERATION).

Colonel THORNE: 80.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the expenses paid to police officers for arresting absentees from the Navy and conveying them to their depots or ships are still at the pre-war rate of 4s. per day; if he is aware that the expenses for the subsistence of the escort and prisoner are paid out of the pocket of the police officer escorting; if he is aware that a police officer in the Midlands arrested a deserter from the Navy on the 18th January, paying the railway expenses and subsistence in escorting the prisoner back to Chatham out of his own pocket, and that several applications have been made for the refund of these out-of-pocket expenses but at the present have not been received from the Admiralty, if he is aware that police officers are granted railway warrants and travel without advancing the railway fare, but the subsistence and any other incidental expenses are paid by the officer escorting; and if he will take action in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend has put down another similar question on this subject for written reply to-day. The matter is dealt with in my answer to that question, except as regards the particular case of 18th January referred to in this question. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish particulars of the case, showing the name of the police officer concerned, the force to
which he belongs, together with amount and date of the claim raised against the Admiralty, inquiries will be made into the matter and a communication sent to my hon. and gallant Friend.

HIS MAJESTY'S YACHT.

Sir B. FALLE: 81.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say if the engineer officers and men on His Majesty's yacht, under agreement T. 124, are entitled to a gratuity; and, if so, to what amount and when such will be paid?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Engineer officers serving under Agreement T.124 Y are entitled to a discharge gratuity under the same conditions and at the same rates as general service executive Royal Naval Reserve officers of relative rank. Thus an engineer-lieutenant, Royal Naval Reserve, will receive £74 for his first year's service and £37 for each subsequent year or part of a year. The gratuity will be paid on application as soon as possible after an officer is signed off his agreement. Men serving under Agreement T. 124 Y are not eligible for a war gratuity in respect of such service, as the gratuity is only payable to men who have been in receipt of naval rates of pay.

NAVAL ENGINEER OFFICERS (SERVANTS' ALLOWANCES).

Sir B. FALLE: 82.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now see his way to granting servants' allowance from the commencement of the War to engineer officers, Royal Navy, who are appointed engineer-overseers in the department of the Engineer-in-Chief of the Fleet, seeing that such is paid to all officers who comply with A.W.O. 607 of 21st February, 1918; and if he is aware that this allowance is paid to all engineer officers employed as repair-overseers under the director of dockyard and repairs, and other departments whose duties are in every way similar to those officers who are employed as overseers under the engineer-in-chief; and if he is aware that engineer officers employed as engineer-overseers in the department of the engineer-in-chief are the only officers coming under the category of the weekly order referred to who do not receive the allowance for servants, their duties being essentially Fleet duties, continually employed carrying out steam trials in danger zones?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is under consideration, and a decision will be given shortly, which I will communicate to my hon. Friend.

ROSYTH NAVAL BASE (47-HOURS WEEK).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 83.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the workmen at Rosyth Dockyard contemplate ceasing work in consequence of the refusal of his Department to concede the 47-hours working week in conformity with the agreement arrived at between employers and workmen in the engineering and shipbuilding trades; and whether it is the intention of the Government to apply the 47-hours week to these workmen?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Under Admiralty letter of the 3rd January, the 47-hours week was applied in His Majesty's Dockyards and industrial establishments generally. It is so applied in the case of the Rosyth Dockyard. The work in question, however, is special construction work (excavation, concrete and timbering), which requires to be done continuously. It is not, therefore, possible in this case to apply a 47-hours week; partly, I may say, because of the inconvenience of train accommodation, amongst other things. But, of course, any man who works more than forty-seven hours a week is paid overtime.

Mr. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two foundries in the dockyards, one of which is under Government control and the other under the control of a private contractor, and that the men engaged under the private contractor are working fifty-five and a half hours a week?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The forty-seven hours has been applied to the foundry under our control since 3rd January. I understood that the question had reference to constructional work, which must be continuous. I will discuss that with my hon. Friend. Perhaps we are at cross purposes. But as regards the contractor, unless he was a member of the federation which was a party to the agreement as to the forty-seven hours I think we can only deal with it under the Fair-wages Resolution, under which we have to be satisfied that he is conforming generally to the practice that would apply to competent workmen.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICE.

STORE DEFICIENCIES.

Mr. RAPER: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry how much has been written off as a charge against the public for stores deficiencies of squadrons stationed in Great Britain since the War began; and what percentage of this amount has been recovered from the officers responsible for such deficiencies?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): These squadrons served with the Navy or Army until April, 1918, when they were transferred to the Air Force, and the value of the stores written off could only be ascertained by much labour on the part of the local and headquarter staffs of the three forces. The results of the inquiry would be misleading, since the write-off did not always represent actual deficiencies, but sometimes represented discrepancies due to defective accounting during war pressure. The money recovered from officers responsible bears no direct ratio to the value of the stores deficient.

AERODROME ACCOUNTS (PUBLIC AUDITOR).

Mr. RAPER: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what were the exact reasons given by a public auditor for resigning at the end of last year from his position as voluntary auditor of aerodrome acounts?

Mr. PRATT: The specific grounds stated were: (1) That no attempt was made to provide the auditors in question with necessary staff; (2) that the highest salary paid in the Department responsible for passing bills was £250, and very few of the staff had any knowledge of the work prior to engagement; and (3) that several members of the staff were highly dissatisfied as to their future, and it was a matter of extreme urgency that something should be done in that respect. Various matters were referred to in general terms, but these were the only specific reasons given.

Sir E. CARSON: Were those reasons true reasons?

Mr. PRATT: Oh, no, Sir, I could not answer that question.

AIR MINISTRY ORGANISATION.

Mr. RAPER: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he
will appoint a small but permanent Committee, composed of two or three hon. Members of this House and two or three gentlemen outside the House who have a knowledge of commercial organisation, to assist the Air Ministry authorities in finance and business matters generally?

Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend's suggestion is noted and will be borne in mind as the organisation of the Air Ministry develops. The principle underlying it has already been accepted by the approval of a Standing Committee with outside representation to watch the working of the Orders regarding civil aviation shortly to be issued under the Air Navigation Acts.

Mr. RAPER: Can the hon. Gentleman say who are the members of the Committee?

Mr. PRATT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down on the Paper.

DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH.

Mr. RAPER: 87.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what are the duties of the Director of Production and Research; and is this officer under General Sykes or General Trenchard?

Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the Director-General of Supply and Research. General Ellington is a member of the Air Council of equal status with Generals Trenchard and Sykes. His duties are to control the Departments of Supply, Inspection and Research in the Air Ministry.

Mr. RAPER: Has General Ellington had any business or scientific experience qualifying him for the position?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

AIR STATIONS.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry how many of the existing Air stations have been closed down since the Armistice; and how many stations it is proposed to maintain permanently after the peace is signed?

Mr. PRATT: It is estimated that forty stations will be required permanently for Royal Air Force purposes. When the Armistice was concluded the policy
adopted was to abandon landing grounds and stop work on stations under construction wherever possible. Work has been stopped on 128 stations. In arriving at this figure account has been taken of requirements for temporary storage and for civil aviation as well as of permanent Royal Air Force requirements.

ATLANTIC (SUGGESTED FLIGHT).

Sir A. FELL: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if the Government is taking any part in the preparations for the suggested flight of aeroplanes across the Atlantic; and, if so, what limit is put on the expenses to be incurred on this account?

Mr. PRATT: The various problems connected with the Atlantic flight have received and are receiving the close attention of the Air Ministry in consultation with private persons and companies interested. The question of direct Government participation has not been finally settled.

Sir A. FELL: Is any sum to be devoted to this attempted Atlantic flight?

Mr. PRATT: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

DEMOBILISATION.

Sir A. FELL: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what is the present position of the demobilisation of the Air Force; and if it is being carried out as rapidly as that of the Army?

Mr. PRATT: Up to the 26th of this month, 8,544 officers and 169,322 other ranks had been dispersed from the Royal Air Force. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

POSTAL FACILITIES, DARTMOUTH.

Colonel BURN: 91.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inconvenience and loss caused by the late delivery of the morning mail at Dartmouth; and will he take the necessary steps to have this rectified?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I regret that the road service to Dartmouth has not been working satisfactorily of late, and am taking steps to secure greater punctuality.

POST OFFICE (MILITARY RANK AND CIVILIAN PROMOTION).

Colonel THORNE: 92.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has authorised a series of proposals whereby Post Office servants who have secured commissioned rank will have preferential treatment over their fellows who have not received promotion in the Army; whether, owing to the great value attaching to the ability of the Royal Engineer signallers, very few of these men have been promoted; and whether, having regard to the injustice which must result from the civil promotion of young men solely on the-ground of military rank, he will countermand any such proposals?

Mr. PIKE PEASE: No general scheme is in contemplation for giving preferential promotion to Post Office servants who have attained commissioned rank, though there will doubtless be individual cases in which aptitude for higher positions demonstrated during the War cannot, in the interests of the service, be disregarded.

CONSTANTINOPLE (POSTAL FACILITIES).

Mr. SUGDEN: 93.
asked the Postmaster-General why, although he sanctions the forwarding of patterns by post to Constantinople, he grants no registration, and resultant very few English, samples are shown, whereas American samples are pouring into Turkey?

Mr. PIKE PEASE: Sample packets for Constantinople, as well as letters and packets of printed and commercial papers, can be registered if addressed; "Poste Restante, British Army Post Office, Constantinople." Correspondence for European Turkey not so addressed can only be delivered through the Turkish Post Office, and in the absence of information as to the present condition of the Turkish Postal Service, it is considered to be inadvisable to accept such correspondence for registration.

COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 109.
(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for
War whether he can now state the composition and terms of reference of the Committee on Courts-martial?

Captain GUEST: The Committee is composed as follows:

Mr. Justice Darling, Chairman.
General the Earl of Cavan.
Mr. Horatio Bottomley, M.P. for South Hackney.
The Right Hon. Lord Hugh Cecil, M.P. for Oxford University.
Major Christopher Lowther, M.P. for North Cumberland.
Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P. for the Ince Division.
Mr. A. Hopkinson, M.P. for the Mossley Division.
Major-General B. E. W. Childs, Deputy Adjutant-General.
Mr. Felix Cassel, K.C., Judge Advocate-General.
Brigadier-General J. G. S. Mellor, Deputy Judge Advocate-General.

The terms of reference are
To inquire into the law and rules of procedure regulating courts-martial both in peace and war, and to make recommendations.

RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BILLS PRESENTED.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL,—"to continue and extend the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by the Solicitor-General and Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL,—"to make further provision for the protection of Animals from cruelty," presented by Lieutenant-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS; supported by Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Butcher, Major Courthope, Lieutenant-Colonel Raymond Greene, and Major O'Neill; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

Orders of the Day — NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE.

Order for Third Reading read.

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
In asking the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill, there are one or two points which I think I might usefully lay before the House, which have cropped up at different periods during the passage of the Bill, and which will enable hon. Members to form a more accurate opinion as to the merits of the measure. There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the names of hon. Members opposite to read the Bill this day six months, and it is followed by what I would describe as a reasoned Amendment. The Government hope that the House will give the Bill unanimous support; they feel that the reasons for doing so are unanswerable. No one has suggested that the proceeding is unnecessary from the military point of view or that the numbers upon which the Government have decided are too great for the duties involved, and, most important of all, no one has put forward any alternative proposal. One of the complaints of the opponents of the Bill had reference to the non-fulfilment of election pledges, and in reply to that I would like to say that it is much truer that at the last election hon. Members stood for a Government measure which would end Conscription in Europe, and that matter is being fought out in Paris to-day. The only other complaint against the measure is that insufficient efforts have been made to provide an adequate number of men by voluntary methods. I am anxious at once to correct a mistake in connection with the figures which were used during the Report stage of the Debate. From the words used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, it might have appeared, and it was, perhaps, not unreasonably deduced, that the 130,000 who have volunteered and who are now serving on pre-war engagements, were exclusive of the Regular Forces of the Crown. That is not so. The Regular pre-war Forces of the Crown are included in the figure 130,000.
The Amendments which were put forward during the passage of the Bill maybe divided into two classes—those which were clearly wrecking Amendments, and no apology is needed or will be required or expected by those who have moved them because the Government have resisted them. Many of these Amendments have come from hon. Members who have at previous times in this House opposed other Service Bills. Then there were Amendments from supporters of the Government, and these should be very differently dealt with. Various degrees of support have been given to the measure, and the Government has attempted to explain to hon. Gentlemen the difficulties attaching to their proposed Amendments. There is one consideration I would ask the House to bear in mind during the course of the Debate this afternoon, and that is that this Bill is not an amending; Bill to the Military Service Act. It has nothing whatever to do with the Act of 1916, and it must not be regarded as an; attempt to amend it. Several attempts have been made, but they have been resisted.
The Amendments from those who haves given various degrees of support to that Bill may be enumerated as follows. The one-year voluntary enlistment Amendment was a strong point raised by soma hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think it was adequately replied to on the Report stage when it pointed out that, in order to relieve garrisons in the Far Eastern territories and in India, a one-year voluntary enlistment would not be efficacious. It is to these far distant contingents that our first duty lies. Then, again, there was an Amendment dealing with the employment of soldiers in labour units. Perhaps the use of the term "labour units" was rather unfortunate, because these units are a vital necessity to the effective management of the Army in the field. I think, however, that point has already been explained. Another Amendment was as to the constitutional position of the soldier, and as to that I have to say that this Bill does not and will not attempt in any way to interfere with that. This, however, is not the place nor is this the Bill upon which to raise so wide and far-reaching an issue. The Amendment to change the date of the Bill from 30th April to a date coincident with the termination of the War, or to 31st December, can best be answered by reliance on
the advice of the military experts who assisted to draft the Bill. It is a convenient date and it must not be forgotten that there is no connection whatever between the date selected, 30th April, 1920, and the passage of the Army (Annual) Act. A distinct understanding has been given that under no circumstances will this Bill be continued under the Expiring Laws Contingency Act which is brought in each year. But the Amendment which called for the most sympathy was one which asked that men who had been abroad for more than two years without leave should at once be given leave and sent home. But for the difficulties of our Far Eastern campaigns I think it is quite possible it would have received less opposition from the Government. The strongest point urged was, however, regarding Russia, and, curiously enough, after the explanation given on that subject the Amendment raising it received less support than any other. The only remaining feature of the Bill which I think it is not unreasonable for me to remind the House of was what was described as its unpopularity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir E. Carson) pointed out to the House in no uncertain terms that the very last man who would wish to be associated with an unpopular measure was my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War. But that did not deter him from placing before the House an Issue so grave as this and one which has behind it such overwhelming support. It is, of course, a measure which may easily become unpopular if misrepresented, and possibly some complaint by the Government on this score would be justifiable, if the times were not so serious. We have debated this measure as if the War was over, but every serious thinking man knows that peace is by no means signed yet, and I would suggest it is hardly patriotic, while war is still going on, to seek to obtain some political advantage at the expense of honesty of purpose. Is it worth while to risk the chances of a lasting victory in order to win a by election? Is it worth while to gamble with the future in order to obtain a momentary political success?

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House refuses to give a Third Reading to a Bill which, in the absence of any immediate national necessity and without any efforts having first been made to secure its objects by voluntary means, confers upon the military authorities the power to extend the period of Conscription under the Military Service Acts as and when they think proper within the limits of the Bill, and thus delegates and hands over to Government Departments powers and responsibilities of supreme importance which should be exercised, if at all, by Parliament alone.
We have listened with the respect that we always show to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Third Beading of this Bill. He practically suggests that we should not undertake the task to which we have committed ourselves in the Amendment put down on the Notice Paper. If we had weakened in our opposition to this Bill we should not have done so. But we have not. We are as strong in that opposition, or even stronger to-day, than we were when the Bill was proposed for Second Beading. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, on the Second Reading, found it necessary practically to lecture us who sit on these benches, as though we were failing in our duty to the nation. But some of us who take part in these Debates are as anxious to do our duty to the nation as any of the hon. Members who have jeered at me for that remark. Some of us have reminders every day at our homes, by empty chairs, of what this War has meant, as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite have.
4.0 P.M.
We are as keen to secure the results of this War as any hon. Member opposite is. As far as I am concerned, I have arrived at a state of life in which the last thing to attract me would be to engage in anything in the nature of barren controversy. When we took this course we took it impelled by as high and patriotic a motive as hon. Members opposite did in proposing the Bill. Surely we can agree in the House of Commons to allow for differences of opinion in great political issues, and those of us who have supported this War right through as earnestly and as faithfully as any gentlemen here have done have a right to express themselves when they come to such an issue as this.
Our view is that we realise that we are dealing with the lives and fortunes of nearly a million of our fellow men, and we cannot but be very thoughtful and anxious to make sure that we do our duty to them. I for one, and I believe my friends who are with me, realise that at
such a stage as this we have to be satisfied on two points. We have to be absolutely satisfied that there is an overwhelming necessity for this Bill as it is presented to the House, and we have to be absolutely satisfied as to the hands into which we are going to commit this million of men. When I voted for the first original Service Bill, I was absolutely satisfied on both those points. In voting against this Bill I am satisfied on neither. I will explain why I oppose it. I draw the contrast between the way in which the previous Bill was presented and the way in which this Bill is presented. When the first Military Service Bill was presented the House was placed under such conditions that we had absolute freedom. The Committee state of that Bill took place on the floor of the House in open day. The Committee stage of this Bill has been sent upstairs. That Bill was subjected to criticism from every quarter of the House. Those criticisms were listened to, Amendments were made and when it left the House it was a House of Commons measure, with the impress of the House upon it. This Bill has none of those characteristics. In the whole course of the Committee and on Report only one small change has been made. The Bill seems more like an Imperial decree coming from the War Office than the act of a free and independent House of Commons. Even in the attempt that was made to modify it slightly, and made by hon. Members who supported its Second Reading, the attempt was flouted just in the same way as all the other Amendments to the Bill were immediately cast on one side and voted down. What is said of it by one of the greatest supporters of the Government in the Press? The proposal to which I refer was a suggestion that the date fixed by the right hon. Gentleman should be antedated two or three months. It was only an attempt as they thought to be a little fairer to the men who were involved in this controversy. I would remind hon. Members that in what we are doing we are dealing with men who cannot speak for themselves. In the previous Bill we had to do with men at home, men who could go before civilian tribunals and who had the privilege of stating their own case to men who could understand their circumstances. Those conditions do not obtain here, and therefore there is more reason that we in the House of Commons should regard ourselves as trustees for those unfortunate
fellow citizens who are forced into the position they do not desire to take. What was the position that the "Daily Chronicle" took in regard to it? It objected to it because it said it ignored the fact that "nothing causes so much discontent to soldiers as to be promised or allowed to expect one thing and then to be palmed off with another." That is what this Bill is. Under the existing law the men are entitled to their release and discharge at a certain period. Now, against their will, they are being "palmed off" with something otherwise.
It seems to me, therefore, that we are entitled to say that this Bill has not received that due consideration at the hands of this House that so important a measure deserves. We contend that there should have been greater attempts to make it clear to the House and the nation that the treatment which is now being given is just. We submit that this is not being done. In the previous Bill it was done to the full. Not only the whole House, but the whole country, was convinced as to the wisdom and necessity of the proposal. I noticed only on Saturday that the Prime Minister—and it seems in strange contrast to his dealings with this House—wrote a letter to the "Manchester Guardian" for their great League of Nations issue, in which he said:
To set up a society of nations to insure effective fraternity among the peoples of the earth, whilst at the same time increasing armies and navies, is to make a mockery of a great ideal.
It seem to me that what we are doing in this House is making a mockery of a great ideal. With these enormous and swollen Estimates, amounting almost to what the National Debt was before the War, and with this Bill bringing Conscription in the form in which it is, it seems to me that we are making a mockery of a great ideal, and making it impossible for the nations of Europe to believe that we are sincere and earnest in our determination to secure the reward of what we have attempted to do.
What is now desired ought to be done by a volunteer Army. Voluntaryism is the essential condition of the Armies we have to put in the field in order to do what may be necessary in Europe and elsewhere at the present stage. We contend that sufficient steps have not been taken to secure such a voluntary Army. They are being taken now, and I saw on Saturday a belated big advertisement, "The soldier's great chance." If this step had been
taken at the beginning and every effort made to make the men realise the situation and the privileges they would enjoy, I believe you would have got all the men necessary without taking these steps. There are further things which are necessary if you are going to get a voluntary Army, and which I conceive to be vital for such an occasion as this. You should make the men know the conditions and make the Army attractive to them. I have a letter from a friend and constituent—one who supported this War as earnestly as any man, one who has sent five sons to the War—who writes to me bitterly complaining of the way in which one of his sons who has gone right through the War came back at the very risk of his life. This is how he ends his letter, and I think it explains why the volunteers have not come forward as they might have been expected. He writes, "It seems to me that everything is done to make the Army as obnoxious as possible, and then we wonder why the men do not join it." I submit that the proper efforts have not been taken to secure a voluntary Army. The attempt to make a compulsory Army should have been the last and not the first resource, and that is why we so strongly object to the course that is now being taken by the Government. We claim that before such a Bill was produced every attempt should have been made, as was done in the previous Bill, to secure the general consent of the country. There was general consent when the first Bill was introduced; indeed, the public were in front of the Government in demanding the Bill, and to my mind that is just the best thing you could secure. You want unity in the country, and instead of promoting unity we are provoking discord.
On the Second Beading of this Bill a dilemma was placed before the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock: it was that either at the General Election the Government knew that this was necessary, and yet did not disclose it, or they did not know it was necessary, and therefore were guilty of a grave lack of prescience. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to answer the dilemma. As to the first point he endeavoured to answer it partly by producing a bill which had been issued by the London Liberal Federation, which told the people what they could expect if this Parliament were re-elected in the form in which it has been elected, and, as he said,
notwithstanding that they have been so elected. Surely it was manifest to anyone what really took place. Another statement to the same effect had been made in another quarter. It had been represented to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister had denied it categorically as an absolute untruth. The electors, therefore, believed the Prime Minister and refused to take notice of the warning. But the election having taken place and the opportunity coming within the very area of that London Liberal Federation, the first time they had a chance after the election the West Leyton election result comes and tells the Government what they think of this particular measure. The man who won that election—we cannot be got off by the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest) as to the way in which by-elections have got to be fought—the man who won that election is an hon. Friend of mine who, I hope, will be here to-night to tell you the circumstances, under which that election was won. The other answer was in regard to lack of prescience. The right hon. Gentleman then, to my mind, made the most astounding admission that has ever been made by a Minister at that box. The election had gone right through, there was no hint of this proposed Bill, and no one imagined it would come—indeed, pledges were given to the contrary—and it is only after the-election is completely over that we have this Bill brought before an astounded House. What did the right hon. Gentleman reply? He said that it never occurred to him.
If such a thing as this Bill was necessary, surely the necessity for it ought to have been known for days, weeks, and even months before. It ought to have been known before the General Election. We might have been told of it in the old Parliament, before we were dismissed. At least we might have been told of it during the General Election. But we were told nothing of the kind. It is only when the election is entirely over that we hear of the vital necessity which now suddenly has been sprung upon the nation. It seems to me that, if ever there was a case, this is a great case of the blind leading the blind. It would not have been so serious if they were only leading one into a ditch—we might scramble out of that—but one of their own supporters told them of the dangers to which we were exposed, and said that we were being led into a whirlpool, and that if we got into the vortex
of that there would be no possible escape. From every aspect of the case the Government are doing what is unjust. They ought to have made the position clear to the country. They ought to have taken every step to secure the men by voluntary methods. It is because they have failed to do their duty as we conceive it that we are exposed to the position that we have now, in the early stages of this Parliament, to consider such a Bill.
We are told that we are up against facts, and that the facts are such that we cannot possibly do otherwise than pass a Bill of this description. It is suggested that the Government are the creatures of circumstances, and that they cannot avoid what they are doing. I submit that they are largely the creators of the circumstances, and that many of the difficulties we have to face we should not have had to face if they had taken a course different from the one they have taken. Before this War commenced we were their friends. We helped them to the extent of our power to win this War. We desire to remain their friends. We desire to help them to win the peace. But a different course was adopted, and we were forced into a position of antagonism we did not desire to take. So there came the General Election, in which we were forced into this narrow, small minority with which we are trying to stand for all that we believe to be the liberties of the people. [Laughter.] I should not have thought that this was a laughing matter. I am not treating this as a laughing matter; I am treating it as seriously as I have ever treated anything in my life. I may be wrong, and you may be wrong, but I have a right to express my views, and I mean to express them to the utmost of my power. The effect of that General Election, bad as it has been in distracting and dividing the people, has had an infinitely worse result. You lost by it the most precious six weeks we could have had in the interests of peace. What we wanted was a quick peace. If we had had a quick peace and had used those six weeks to get it, many of the difficulties which now confront us would have been avoided absolutely. Therefore, it is not fair to charge the farts as though they were such as the Government had no association with them. In regard to many of the difficulties, it is the Government, by their action in the General Election, who have produced them. Of course I know, from what has happened this afternoon, and from what happened on the Second Reading,
what will happen when we go into the Division Lobby to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I know; you will vote us down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—but you will not beat us down. I heard those cries and jeers on the Second Reading, and ? they seemed to me very much like a thin echo of the jeers which came from the Germans when they had their big battalions against the little battalions we sent out to meet them, when they said, "Get rid of French's contemptible little Army." You are trying to do the same thing. Our men out there were not intimidated by the sneers of the Germans, and we are not going to be intimidated by your sneers either. It seems strange, perhaps, to hon. Gentlemen that a minority in this House should dare to raise its head and stand for what it believes to be freedom. We have been sent here for a definite purpose, and are going to fulfil the purpose for which our constituents have sent us here. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are we!"] We are not pledged to the Government; we are pledged to our constituents. They have sent us here as free men, to freely speak our minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wee Frees!"] We believe that the course now being taken is the wrong course, that it hinders instead of helps the peace we desire, and because we believe that, we shall not be intimidated by taunts, but shall strive throughout to stand for the principles we have have been sent here to represent.

Major HAYWARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend who has just sat down has, in an eloquent speech, announced the general principles which compel many of us to take up the attitude towards this Bill which we do. In the observations I have to make I shall confine myself exclusively to the considerations contained in the Amendment. I am quite aware that this Amendment contains statements which, in view of all that has been said from the Treasury Bench to the contrary, must appear somewhat startling. It declares that there is no immediate national necessity for this Bill and that no attempts have been made to secure its objects by voluntary means. I am going to be sufficiently presumptuous to say that both those propositions can be established beyond doubt, and further that it is possible even now, by a simple Amendment which the Government could get inserted in another place, at one and the same time to remove
the gravest defects from this Bill and give time at least to try to secure the objects of the Bill by voluntary enlistment, and that without in the slightest degree jeopardising any national interest whatever. First, let me deal very briefly with the other great defect in the Bill referred to in the Amendment, namely, that it is one more attempt to take away from Parliament and hand over to the military authorities powers, duties, and responsibilities which Parliament should never delegate to anybody. Taking advantage of an inexperienced and acquiescent House of Commons, the Government has been steadily pursuing this course ever since Parliament met. I called attention to it on the Second Reading of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill. But when it comes to handing over to the military authorities the power to conscript 900,000 British subjects, it is quite time that Parliament began to take a serious view of this matter. For that is what the Bill does. Probably many hon. Members, when they were voting for it at previous stages, were under the impression that they were themselves voting to extend the period of Conscription. They were doing nothing of the sort. If they will read the Bill carefully they will see that Clause 1 provides:
If the competent authority is of opinion—
that is, the military authorities—
that; as respects any men to whom this Section applies or any class of such men, they cannot consistently with the public interest be released from actual service … Any such man may be retained and his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, as the competent authority may order.
That is, as the military authorities may order. That is a power and responsibility which Parliament has no right to delegate to any other authority and which the Government has no right to ask them to so delegate. This is far more than a debating point. It is far more than a constitutional point, important as that is. There are certain very important and practical results flowing from it. To ascertain what these are, let us look at what the situation is to-day. I am quite content to take it as described by the Secretary of State for War. The prologue to his speech on the Army Estimates consisted of a very vivid and illuminating description of the fluid state of affairs in the world to-day. He said:
Almost every factor with which we have to deal is uncertain and fluctuating. We cannot forecast the exact rate at which demobilisation will be completed. We do not yet know what requirements affecting armaments will be embodied in the Treaty of Peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1919, col. 69, Vol. 113.]
It is perfectly true that all the factors and all the considerations upon which military decisions will be taken are still liquid. They are still malleable from the effects of the fiery furnace of the War through which we have just passed, but they are now being moulded and cast. Some of those factors have already become established, stabilised, and set, or will be in the near future. One of the immediate results of handing over this power to the military authorities now is that it deprives Parliament of all power of shaping events and policy. It deprives Parliament of all control over the situation when it has further developed, when some of the unknown factors are known, and when the necessities and requirements of the occasion are fully appreciated and known. It relieves the Government from the necessity of coming and telling the House of Commons the facts when they are known, and it enables them to commit the country to practically any military policy without Parliamentary control or even without Parliamentary knowledge. "Events must govern us now" the Secretary of State for War told us, so in the meantime, while the situation is still fluid, while it can still be moulded, we are to hand everything over, all our prerogatives, all our powers, and all our responsibilities; but next year, the right hon. Gentleman told us—that is, when the situation is more set—when decisions have been taken which are irrevocable, when we can no longer take any share in controlling policy, "if all is well Parliament should once again be able to resume the general control of our Army finance," and, of course, policy—that is when it is too late for us to be able effectively to control it at all. I cannot emphasise too strongly that Parliament should never have been asked, and certainly should never consent, to delegate its powers and its responsibilities in this supremely important matter of Conscription and at the same time deprive itself of all power of effectively controlling military policy.
Let me deal with another point which is raised in the Amendment. The case put persistently and insistently from this side was that compulsion under no circum-
stances should be resorted to until every endeavour had been made to secure the objects of this Bill by voluntary enlistment. The reply of the Government upon this point was that they had made every effort, and the right hon. Gentleman was very angry with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) because he made the suggestion that every effort had not been made. The right hon. Gentleman told us what efforts he had made. He said he had increased the pay, he had renewed the bounties, he had renewed the bonus, and also that he had gone so far as to advertise. He administered a stern rebuke to my right hon. Friend, and accused him of inaccuracy. Speaking during the Report stage, he said, referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend:
He said we have not tried the voluntary system. There is no truth in that accusation. The Government have tried very hard to obtain men by other means under the voluntary system. They are trying very hard to obtain men under the voluntary system and they will continue to do so.
Again, in the same speech:
To say it was not a bonâ fide attempt to obtain men under the voluntary system is quite inaccurate.
Seeing that that statement was made in the Debates on this Bill, and seeing that the observations of my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) were directed to obtaining men by voluntary service for the purposes of this Bill, I think the House had every right to assume that the right hon. Gentleman meant that he had taken every step to provide by voluntary effort the men provided by this Bill. But when he was pressed later on in the evening by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), he had to admit that he had taken no steps whatever to obtain the men provided by this Bill by voluntary effort.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I never did!

Major HAYWARD: This Bill provides for the extension of compulsory military service to those men to whom it applies until 30th April.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is open to any man not included in the scope of this Bill who has not yet been demobilised, and it has been open to any man up to the present, until he was demobilised, to volunteer for the Army of Occupation and receive at once the substantial bonus which had been granted as from 1st of February.

Major HAYWARD: That is a new point. The right hon. Gentleman has not stated this before.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes, I have!

Major HAYWARD: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has offered to men at present in the Army the power to volunteer up the 30th April, 1920, and that they will have increased pay and the bonus?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. It was made known to every man from the moment this scheme was introduced that if he was not in the class which had to be retained he could volunteer to stay on, and he would be treated exactly the same with regard to pay and bonus; and so far from that not having reached the hon. and gallant Gentleman, 6,000 men in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine have volunteered to stay on.

Major HAYWARD: I am exceedingly glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope he will continue in his effort. I hope he will take every step in order to induce men to continue their service for the purposes of this Bill, but I am still of the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman has not made it clear previously in this Bill.
One might well ask what could have induced the Government to bring in such a Bill as this. Why should they come to Parliament and ask for an extension of Conscription at all? I have a sufficient appreciation of the courage and independence of the right hon. Gentleman to know that he was not acting under duress; he was not acting under undue War Office influence, although we heard rumours some months ago that the War Office had quite made up its mind that, having once got Conscription, they were going to keep it. But I do not take that view at all. What then could have been the reason? There is only one reason which could justify such a Bill as this, and that is urgent, pressing, immediate, national necessity, and that as a matter of fact is the case of the Government. The Patronage Secretary, in moving the Second Reading, said:
This Bill comes within the category of those which need urgent decision.
The Secretary of State for War said:
The only reason which has led us to bring, forward this Bill has been the driving power of imperious necessity.
So that is the Government case, urgent, pressing, immediate, imperious necessity.
That is the only reason which could possibly justify and warrant such a measure as this. I waited to hear what that immediate necessity was. The Patronage Secretary in his speech commending the Second Beading of the Bill gave us not a word of explanation as to what the necessity was. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech did explain. In a passage of lofty and forcible eloquence he told us:
In quite a few months, how many we cannot tell, and the uncertainty alone adds to the difficulty of the position, but on a certain date, which is certainly approaching and which is near, but which cannot be fixed, the entire structure of your Army system flies into a myriad pieces automatically. That is what we are approaching. On the day of the signature of peace—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Ratification; I did correct it.

Major HAYWARD: I will accept that amendment.
On the day of the ratification of peace every man who is with the Colours would be entitled, in the absence of this Bill, if the House acceded to the sugg3stio'i made and refused to pass the Bill, to be released, because the whole structure of the Army falls to pieces in every part of the world simultaneously.
That is certainly a most alarming prospect, and enough be give anyone pause. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman rubbed it in, and delivered to us a very serious homily, amounting to a stern rebuke, with regard to our responsibilities. He said:
To vote against this Bill is a very serious step because it is a vote which deliberately seeks to plunge this country and its military system into absolute anarchy on a date which cannot be far distant, and it is a vote which undoubtedly would deprive this country, if successful, of all power of securing the fruits of the War, and of making the Germans observe the Peace Treaty and of doing our duty equally with our Allies.
No wonder, speaking later on the Report, the Patronage Secretary borrowed so powerful an argument from his right hon. Friend, and complained, as he has complained again to-day, that we have not met that argument. I propose to do my best to meet it. The truth is that these lofty and imposing periods of the right hon. Gentleman, which as oratory I admit are quite incomparable, are nevertheless a very unsatisfactory medium for accurate definition. My reply to this whole story of the Army flying to pieces, annihilated on the ratification of peace as at the crack of doom, is that it is absolutely untrue. The fact of it is that the Government
has entirely overlooked its own termination of the Present War Definition Act which was passed at the end of last Session, Clause 1 of which provides that the date of the termination of the War shall not be the signature of peace, not even the ratification of peace, not even the ex-change of the treaties of the peace, but such date as His Majesty in Council may declare. This whole story of the Army flying' to pieces and simply disappearing on the conclusion of peace as at the wave of the magician's wand, and which is the whole case of the Government for the Bill, simply falls to the ground. It is true that Clause 2 of that Bill provides that the date so declared shall be as nearly as may be the date of the exchange or deposit of the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, but that makes no difference to my argument, and it does not strengthen the Government's case, which is that without this Bill this overwhelming calamity will overtake them on the ratification of peace, and without the Government having any control over it. Now it appears that is not so, but before such a contingency can arise there has to be an Order in Council, which is within the complete control of the Government, and, in case of necessity, it could be held up without doing any injury to anyone until the Government had made themselves secure. I quite agree it would be a most inconvenient and inexpedient course to hold up either the signature of peace or the ratification of peace or the exchange of the treaties, but it is another story altogether to hold up an Order in Council until you have made yourself secure. The point is that the Government has already, by the Act to which I have referred, protected itself against such a calamity as the right hon, Gentleman said would arise. The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of accusing hon. and right hon. Members on this side of inaccuracies. I heard him do it twice last week. Inaccuracies are often inexcusable and often inevitable in hon. and right hon. Members who have non-official sources to which to go for their information; but I suggest that inaccuracies are quite inexcusable on the part of Ministers of the Crown in dealing with a very important Bill like this. I am not making this as a mere debating point. It is one of real substance and has a very important bearing on the case which has been made by Members on this side, I make it in order to show that there is still an alternative possible.
The Patronage Secretary has complained on three occasions that we have suggested no alternative. He complained again this afternoon. I propose to make a suggestion and I submit it to the very earnest and serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The suggestion I make is this: that he should get an Amendment even now inserted in another place providing that the powers conferred by this Bill should be actually exercised, not by the Military authorities but by an Order in Council, the draft of which should be laid before Parliament in some such way as was provided by the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill. Or I would suggest another course, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the procedure of the Reserve Farces Act, 1882. That Act provides that the reserves should be called up by His Majesty in Council by Proclamation; the occasion and necessity for such proclamation having first being submitted to the House of Commons and to both Houses of Parliament. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that we should not take equal precautions in conscripting 900,000 British subjects as in calling up the Reserves. The only possible objection I can conceive to such a course is that it would in the meantime keep the men in suspense. That is precisely what the Bill does as it stands, and the proposal that I make would not alter the Bill in that respect at all. While there could be no objection there are certain very obvious advantages in such a course. First, it would remove this gross constitutional defect in the Bill. It would give us not only the shadow but some suggestion of substance of real Parliamentary control. At any rate, it would save the face of Parliament. It would keep up appearances, and there would not be the undisguised, unadorned self-abnegation which this Bill proposes. It would be a very real check on military policy. Can it be doubted that it would have a very healthy and a very moderating influence on the military advisers of the Government if their policy had to be submitted to the House of Commons once more before this Bill could be made effective. Secondly, it would give Parliament an opportunity of reviewing the situation when it is more established, when some of the factors which are now unknown are known, and when we know what arrangements affecting armaments will be embodied in the Treaty of Peace.
Finally, there is this advantage, that it will give the Government in the meantime ample opportunity of ascertaining whether they can get the men required for this Bill by voluntary enlistment. Up to the present they have not done that. The right hon. Gentleman on several occasions has accused hon. Members on this side of the House of persistently and consistently opposing everything the Government does. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not so. Our attitude is precisely what the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was towards the Government when he sat on the Bench below me before he crossed over on taking office. I approach this subject entirely in the spirit of the opening observations of the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Readng speech, and that is
with a sincere desire to understand each other's points of view and with the resolve to act in accordance only with the real necessities of the country.
One of the real necessities of the country is that its susceptibilities should not be rudely and wantonly wounded by measures of this kind, except at the dictates of imperious, urgent necessity, which I think I have shown does not exist. [HON. MEMBEKS: "No, no!"] At any rate, the point that I have already made does prove this, that the Government could not be taken by surprise; they have always their Order in Council to fall back upon, so that they can make themselves safe. I make this final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, let him get this safeguard included in another place. Let him withhold his hand from making this vicarious sacrifice until he has lifted his eyes to see what voluntary offerings the thicket will provide, and if all else fails let him come to Parliament with the suggested Order in Council and I am quite sure Parliament will readily grant whatever the necessities of the occasion require.

Sir EDWARD CARSON: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and with the Seconder, that this is a matter of extreme importance, and a matter of very grave anxiety to the country. I hope the Prime Minister in Paris is learning a lesson from day to day from what is happening in this country by reason of the protracted delays in Paris and the putting off from day to day of a concluded peace. I am one of those who have always believed and have stated that the first and main duty of those who went to Paris, from
every reason, was at once to get a satisfactory peace with Germany. I think it is a great pity that they were led away into the discussion of the broader questions which would follow from peace, and which no doubt ought to be part, at all events, of the consequences of peace. The Prime Minister must learn, in Debates such as we are having this evening, and particularly from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, that we are fast losing sight of the broader interests of the country and degenerating into the less important interests of politics. The hon. Gentleman said that he and his group—he did not exactly explain why—were forced into antagonism to the Government. Let me ask him to beware lest by his conduct he and the others are not being forced rather into antagonism to the country. It is impossible to avoid in the delays which have occurred a natural reaction in the country after the War, a longing, craving desire for peace, for the sons and the husbands in the homes, is the most natural human feeling that one can have after nearly five years of war. And anybody who has watched the situation must know that if you have a small, disgruntled political party in this House, they have a most fertile ground to work on in the country. The Mover of the Amendment said, "Look at West Leyton." Yes; look at it. Look, if you like, at Hull. Follow what has been going on in these elections. I do not think there is anything to be proud of in taking advantage of a Bill of this kind, which would necessarily be an unpopular Bill under any circumstances, and trying to win a by-election. All I can say is that if I were never to get another vote in my own Constituency I should be sorry to make use of an occasion of this kind to angle for votes, or to angle for popularity.

An HON. MEMBER: What about the General Election?

Another HON. MEMBER: What about the coupon?

5.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON: I had no coupon. I know nothing about it. There was a time not very long ago when we used to hear cheered to the echo in this House, the statement "Never again. This must be the last war." I would suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are going a bad way about the "never again" and the "last war"
business, if before we know what course Germany is going to take, instead of strengthening our position as our negotiations advance, we weaken our position, to such an extent that it may be even at the eleventh hour Germany will be prepared if not to resist to the end, at all events to prolong the agonies of war. The very men who think they do without this necessary preparation are the very men who, above all others, I believe, wish to get out of this War the League of Nations. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but a League of Nations without power to enforce its will is the most useless thing of all, and it will be nothing but a trap for the unwary to allow themselves to be beguiled by these broad theories when there is no force behind them. These are the men who say, "Let us get rid of Conscription and the necessity for large armies and extended armaments." Will you be in a position to do this if once you let your whole organisation fall to pieces, as it undoubtedly will. [HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I will take up the hon. Member's argument in a moment—unless we pass this Bill to keep a sufficient and a barely sufficient Army together for that purpose. The opposition to this Bill, and the remarks that I have seen in the papers, have been the best tonic that Germany and Austria could have had at the present moment from this country. Just imagine what Germany in her present position must be thinking of those who say that we are forcing people into antagonism to the Government even when the Government are making these efforts to secure a position which will enable us to reap the fruits of our victories. I should like to ask if hon. Members are opposing this Bill so very meekly because they know they cannot defeat the Government? I will put it to those who are leading the Liberal party—I do not know who they are—that if they were sitting where my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War is sitting, if the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was Secretary of State for War, and I am glad he is not, would he take upon himself, as against the course suggested by our military advisers as to what the necessity really is to say, "I will run the chance of the whole fruits of our sacrifices in lives and treasure for the last four and a half years being thrown away."
I do not believe he would, or any other man who has a sense of responsibility to his country.
There is another aspect of the question. What do you think France must think of all this. We used to hear during the War of a great ambition on this side of the House to bring about a closer alliance and a closer brotherhood with our nearer neighbour and one time our oldest enemy. Many of us have gone over the fields of France and have seen what has happened in their towns and villages. They have had the enemy over their land and he has knocked at their doors. Their women have been ravished, and their communities destroyed. What are they thinking? They are thinking, Is this ever going to happen again? They are thinking what is the line between us and the Germans which is to prevent them attacking them if they are allowed ever again to revive as a military Junker power, and they are asking what will save us in the future. They are determined, as far as I can gather, and rightly determined, so far as they are concerned, they will not weaken and if they can prevent it they will not allow the Allies to weaker one iota till they have made secure, not merely for the present but for all future time, their lives and liberties. Anyone reading extracts from the French papers can see now that they are growing gravely suspicious as to whether this country is really going to see them through to the end. We are in certain respects a strange people. While all the horrors of the War were present to us and while the War was going on we were prepared to make any and every sacrifice that was necessary in our determination to win, and we must take care although the Armistice was signed, and when peace has not yet come that we are not too ready in the other direction to say we must have peace, and forget all about our preparedness and organisation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member who moved this Amendment said nothing but overwhelming necessity would justify this Bill, and I quite agree. How are we to judge that overwhelming necessity? Am I to take it from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member opposite, or am I to take it from a responsible Government with their military advisers. Which of them am I to choose? What is the last argument?

Major HAYWARD: My suggestion was that the Government should come to the House when the necessity arose with their Order in Council.

Sir E. CARSON: Yes, when the Germans are in Paris. They got near enough before, and they are not going to get near again. The hon. Member opposite, in a most closely reasoned speech which I tried to follow, used a most extraordinary argument. He said if the Government had only looked at the Act of Parliament which defines the termination of the War they would have found they could have done all that was necessary by an Order in Council. I have looked at that Act of Parliament, and I do not agree with the construction which the hon. Member has placed upon it. But I will take the hon. Member's own argument and assume that they could. What is all this fuss about? Why all these horrible things about prolonging the service of soldiers if it could be done by an Order in Council. But even if it could be done in that way, the bravest course is to come to this House, and ask that this prolongation should be made. The argument as to overwhelming necessity was the only one which the hon. Member put forward. He did not bring forward any military or naval opinion, and I do not suppose he could, and he gave no reason that led him to believe that Germany would be so docile that if we had no Army she would be willing to accept any terms we put upon her.
We are driven to a case of this kind. We have to say whether we will take the facts as to the necessity for this measure from the responsible Minister, and the Government with all their military advisers at their back, and the men we trust to win the War, or whether you will accept the attitude taken up by the remnant of the Liberal party opposite. I am not on this occasion going to refuse my support to the Government. I remember once;, when a number of hon. Members were pressing—I do not know whether it was my right hon. Friend opposite or somebody else—for a reduction of Naval Estimates. On that occasion the hon. Member for Stoke (Lieutenant-Colonel Ward), who has since covered himself with the highest honours in the field of battle, got up amongst his old comrades and said, "I, at all events, will never be a party to a Vote that could in anywise weaken the naval defences of this country." All honour to him, because he acted against the views of many of those with whom he was closely associated.
Any man voting here will have exactly that responsibility in opposing the recommendations of the Government, and those responsible for the carrying out of this War to the end. We ought to remember that the end of the War has not yet come, and those who oppose this measure will be relying upon I do not know what to defeat this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member opposite said there was an alternative. They asked us to do what was done on a former occasion, that is, start a Derby scheme or another voluntary scheme, and advertise it for several months all over the country. Was there ever anything more ridiculous? I am as well aware as hon. Members opposite how this Bill can be misrepresented, and it is being misrepresented day after day. It is the? cheapest popularity that you can get when you know that you are safe and the Bill will pass, to go and abuse those who bring it forward, and try at a moment like this to discourage the people who are sick and tired of war, whereas if the Government had not the courage they have shown in bringing forward this Bill those are the very people who would have been robbed of the fruits of the victory which their sons have won.

Mr. WALLACE: I rise to intervene in this Debate with the greatest possible reluctance, and as a new Member with a considerable amount of diffidence, and this is rather increased by the fact that I have to follow such a convincing speech as that which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson). I would have liked to have made my first speech in support of some great Government measure with which I was in cordial agreement, but that pleasure is denied me on the present occasion. In opposing this Bill I completely dissociate myself from those charges of corruption and bad faith which have been brought against the Prime Minister and the Government, and I accept without reservation the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there is no intention of fastening a permanent system of Conscription upon this country. There is no one more aware than I am of the insignificant position which a private Member holds in this House, but if I may, I should like to explain how it is that, as a Coalitionist Liberal returned to support the Government, I find myself in opposition to them on the present occasion. Rightly or wrongly, at the General Election I interpreted various speeches
of the Prime Minister and other members of the Government as meaning that no further conscriptive measures would be introduced into this House. In that interpretation I may have been wrong, but it was mine. It was my first election, and it is quite possible that in the storm and stress of a General Election one's powers of concentration are somewhat impaired, and I may not have read those speeches aright. There are many other Coalition Liberals who were more cautious, more far-seeing, and more experienced than myself; but I am only a simple Soot, and in the hurry and bustle of a General Election forgot the Psalm of Life, which enjoins me to remember, especially in matters political, that things are not what they seem. Be that as it may, on my interpretation of those speeches I made the most definite pledges regarding Conscription, and I promised to vote for the abolition of Conscription as soon as peace was signed. I am quite aware that peace has not yet been signed, but by peace I mean the final ratification of the Peace Treaty, and until that time comes you have got your present Army in being. In case there is any misconception I should like to explain that my vote on this occasion is not animated in the slightest degree by any wish to be tender to Germany. I wish the most stringent peace terms to be enforced. We owe it to our great sacrifices in this. War, and we owe it to the memory of those men who have given their lives fighting for their country, to see that the fullest possible reparation is made by Germany; and above all we must demand, as far as our own country is concerned, that we have the most absolute security for the future. It is from that point of view I wish to consider this Military Service Bill.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's position and what is his case? He states that a large Army of Occupation is necessary in Germany, and that we must provide troops for other parts of the Empire, including territory over which we hold mandatory authority, and that if the House does not pass this Bill our Army will fly to pieces when peace has been finally ratified. I do not think there is any man in this House who could view without grave concern the position of our Army flying to pieces even at the ratification of peace, and if I thought such an event were possible I should not be opposing this Bill, and if indeed I thought that by opposing this Bill I was in the
slightest degree endangering the fruits of victory I should vote for the Government. I contend that my objects, so far as the war is concerned, are exactly the same as those of my right hon. Friend, but our methods of achieving those objects are entirely different and divergent. May I say a single word about the general Army of Occupation? Our Army is there now, and will remain until Germany has finally accepted whatever terms we care to impose. I take it, therefore, that my right hon. Friend has in view the keeping of an Army in Germany in order that Germany may observe the terms of the Peace Treaty. If an Army on such a scale in Germany is really necessary I should be the last to oppose it, but is it really necessary? What other resources have we at our command in order to make Germany observe the most stringent terms of the most stringent peace treaty we may impose on her. On the Second Reading of this Bill there was scarcely a single word said about the Navy, but the Navy was the main factor in winning the War, and I suggest that it ought also to be the main factor in winning peace. In our naval power alone, and certainly without an Army of Occupation on such a huge scale as is suggested, you have got sufficient power to impose upon Germany the observance of the last word and the last comma of the Peace Treaty. I would remind the House that we are only one of many Allies making peace with Germany. If the Allies are going to hold together, and if there is to be any meaning in the League of Nations, we have almost incalculable resources to impose our will upon Germany for as long as we like, and it seems to me that the power and resources of our Navy in this matter have been entirely left out of account. Incidentally, the Allies have got economic resources, the power of which they can make Germany feel at any time, and, incidentally, they have got the power of imposing financial pressure, one of our most potent weapons, upon Germany should she show the slightest desire to depart from any terms contained in the Peace Treaty. I know that the idea of using economic and financial pressure upon Germany is, in the opinion of some men highly experienced in international affairs, the most powerful weapon we could use, and I am also aware that that was the view of the
Government until a comparatively recent date, and why it has been changed I am not aware.
In making these observations I speak with all humility, because I am not a military expert. I am an ordinary business man, who tries to bring whatever measure of common sense and business ability Providence has endowed him with to bear on these questions, and it has simply come upon me, and I do not know whether other hon. Members have had similar experience, as a startling and unpleasant revelation that in the first year of peace we propose to spend between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000 sterling upon our Army alone. This House conveys many impressions to a new Member, many of them agreeable, but I think the most amazing of all is that of the prodigality with which this House spends the nation's money. Our present war expenditure is simply appalling. I do not know how long it is to go on, but I do know that we are living in an atmosphere of absolutely artificial prosperity, and the day of reckoning cannot be long deferred, and it may be nearer than some of us imagine. I almost wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who possesses such versatility, could combine along with that office that of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think if along with a Bill for Army expenditure he also had to find the money for it, I suggest that his Estimates would be furnished on a somewhat less extravagant and wasteful scale. I do not wish any false economy, I wish to have the largest possible margin of safety for our own country, but I think some regard in all these matters ought to be had to the present financial position of the country, and that there should be some attempt made at least to correlate the enormous expenditure of the various spending Departments of the Government.
I wish to consider this Military Service Bill from the point of view of the man in the Army. To-day our first consideration always must be to conserve the fruits of victory and our national safety in the future, but I suggest that those objects are not incompatible with keeping faith with the men in the Army who were enlisted under the Military Service Act of 1916. Considerations may arise in the present unsettled state of Europe which may cause you to revise and reconsider the provisions of that Act, but I contend up to now they have not arisen. I deliberately make the statement that whatever else may be said
in favour of this Bill, at the present time it is at least distinctly premature. I confess that in listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and sitting on these benches under the magnetic influence of his eloquence, I sometimes almost say to myself, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a conscriptionist," but to vary that a little, and to take an illustration which he himself gave last week, I am glad to say that my better self, or my more logical self, prevails. I have listened to every speech which my right hon. Friend has delivered, and he has absolutely failed to convince me on one point. On one point I consider his case for this Bill absolutely breaks down, and this has been referred to by more than one hon. Member. I do not think that he has presented any case to this House which shows that on the part of the War Office itself any serious effort whatever has been made in the voluntary direction. I saw in the "Daily Chronicle" last week, a paper which this House knows is noted for its accuracy and strict impartiality, that regarding Conscription there was an interview at Old Scotland Yard, and the official in charge there said:
We are filled right up to-day and we are now taking men on for to-morrow. Recruiting at present is far in advance of the pre-war rate. We are getting a far better class of man. It is the same for the Army as for everything else. You have got to advertise.
I think that that recruiting officer at Old Scotland Yard would be quite a useful man at the War Office. He knows his job. You have got to advertise to-day. I see no sign of any serious attempt to advertise for men in the Army at present on the voluntary principle. What is the present position? You have got your Army until the final ratification of peace, and the statement has been made, and not contradicted, that a period of possibly six or nine months will elapse before the final ratification of peace. What could you do in that time in the way of a voluntary Army? I have gone into this question closely, and on Saturday I sent for a gentleman in London who has great experience in publicity propaganda. I think the House ought to remember that advertising now has become a very highly specialised profession. I put the Army case before my friend and told him that the War Office were recruiting at the rate of a thousand a day at the present time, and I asked him, if really up-to-date, organised methods of advertising were em-
ployed in order to get a voluntary Army, what in his view could be done. After going into the matter, he gave me as a minimum, if the methods which are employed to-day in advertising War Bonds, for instance, were employed, that the number of men voluntarily recruited into the Army would reach not less than 4,000 a day. If that statement is correct—I say that if you allow one month for preparation of your propaganda—your recruiting is still going on—and another five months for propaganda and recruiting, by the end of that time you could have a voluntary Army of between 500,000 and 600,000 men, and that, in my opinion, in all probability before the final ratification of peace. I do not wish to detain the House, but even if my friend's calculation is exaggerated I would point this out. I am extremely anxious that the country should keep faith with the men in the Army. There are many hard cases, but there is not a Member of this House who does not get letters every day bringing these cases before him, and I am anxious that these men in the Army who have got business, social, and family responsibilities and who are being kept against their will should, when peace is ratified, be released. If this enlightened propaganda were undertaken, you would be able at least to release all the hard cases, or nearly all, and save all this dissatisfaction that is going on at the present time. I wish to conclude these few rambling observations by giving the representative of the War Office a single hint, if I may do so with the utmost respect. I think the War Office should remember that a great many of the men in the Army who have been fighting for such a long time, who have been out for years, and who have returned home, might not be so enamoured of home as they expected. They have been visualising and idealising, home life, and I am quite certain that a most skilful and fruitful appeal could be made to those men, considering the very attractive conditions which are now offered for service in the Army. I trust that this will not be lost sight of, because it seems to me that if the War Office for once would take a little advice from a civilian it would not be altogether to its disadvantage. I have finished, and I am sorry I have spoken for so long, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to discard Conscription, to develop the voluntary system, and for once in its long history to introduce some imagination into War Office methods.

Mr. CLYNES: There was, I think, one blemish in the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, and that was when, towards its close, he described his speech as but a few rambling observations. I am sure the House will desire me warmly to congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon both the form and the force of the excellent maiden speech which has just been delivered. I cannot address myself to the Bill now before the House without first saying a word with reference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson). I have heard him in this House deliver many powerful speeches, but if he thinks that his speech of this afternoon can be classed amongst them he is really making a mistake, for it was not a defence of the Bill at all; it was merely a succession of unworthy personal thrusts at those of us who differ from the Government on matters of high policy, and who believe that the Government is not keeping faith either with the country or with the Army in pressing this Bill through. We least of all are entitled to hear taunts from the right hon. Gentleman as to either our patriotism or our duty to the country, for he himself is not without some embarrassing records of having made a large share of the difficulties for at least this country, and it may be that when full authoritative information is revealed to the world as to why precisely the Germans chose August, 1914, for beginning the War, it will be seen that their choice had some connection with the condition of things created by the right hon. Gentleman. Nor can I altogether hear without some discount his references to there being a complete absence of any party motives in the course which is being taken on those benches as compared with the benches behind me. What was the object, for instance, on the eve of the election of the Prime Minister and many of his immediate associates describing those with whom I act on these benches as being in sympathy with the Bolsheviks and as taking a course wholly unpatriotic and ruinous to their country? We are not opposing this Bill because we are less inclined now to sustain our country in its present great difficulties than those who sit on the benches opposite, and we are entitled to ask that our arguments, such as they are, should be examined without reference to these merely manufactured personal motives
which are alleged against us. It is no answer to our arguments to refer to the remnant of a party or parties on this side of the House. Clearly, if we are to take the usual test which is always accepted in the country, the test of by-election results, we are, however small in numbers here, at least the interpreters of a very large body of opinion in the country. We are not manufacturing that opinion; we are merely expressing it, and therefore it is the duty of those who support this Bill to do themselves some credit by doing justice to the arguments which we are endeavouring to adduce.
I would say personally for myself that I have not said a word in the country against this Bill, nor written a line against it. I would p refer on such a matter as this to leave it to the test of the collective judgment of this House. I will say that I would rather have this Bill than in the present circumstances have no Army at all. Many of us for as long as it was thought necessary and wise supported the principle of voluntary recruitment during the earlier years of the War, and when a stage of the sternest necessity was reached, many of us agreed that those who had not volunteered could justly be called upon to join the ranks and share the burdens of a soldier with those who had volunteered. But I will ask the House to remember that the country as a whole prized very highly the principle of voluntary service, and that we departed from it only because of supreme national need, and having so departed from it and having won the War, we ask now whether it is not proper to return to that principle, which was departed from, as I say, only for a supreme purpose and as a temporary necessity. Any class in the country may claim it has been treated badly as a result of the War, but the class which has fared worst is surely those who have formed the rank and file of our Armies. No section has been treated so badly as our soldiers. They had to serve, either voluntarily or as a result of the various measures which forced them to join the ranks, and it is a real ground of grievance amongst the soldiers of all ranks that when the War was over, as we were told it was, the country was rushed into an election under conditions which, as experience has shown, and as was, indeed, forecasted by many, made it impossible for the men who have borne
the main burden and weight of the War to cast their votes or express their views on the future policy of this country. In pay, in conditions of service, and in treatment as citizens in being deprived of opportunities to vote, no section has been treated as badly as the soldiers have, and this is a further wrong that we are doing to the men in the Army, and we would suggest to the Government that when the Germans were at the highest point of their apparent success—that is to say, the nearer the Germans came to our shores and the greater were their initial successes—the greater was the response on the part of our people to join the ranks in a voluntary way. If it be true, as the Secretary for War declared in this House a few days ago, that our difficulties are so immense and the dangers so great, I am sure he has only clearly to make known to the country the extent and the reality of those dangers to produce a response that will fill the ranks for service in any part of the world; and I think we might have tried—there yet is time; there yet is plenty of time—we might have tried to have secured the Army said to be necessary now to the extent of either nine hundred thousand or perhaps a million men, and to have offered attractive conditions of service on good terms, service not unduly long, and under arrangements which, coupled with the necessary military efficiency, would not have imposed an unduly long period on any section of men.

Colonel THORNE: And trade union pay.

Mr. CLYNES: Before I finish, I am coming to that point about pay. These millions of men, who either volunteered or who had to join, joined as they understood, in the simple terms of their bargain with the State, "for the duration." They have been told the War is over, and here now is a Bill telling them in effect that just because they are now in the Army they are the men who have to be kept there. A Bill which places in the hands of what is termed the competent authority the power to retain in the Service any man who in the eye of the present law is entitled to be released is not what the soldiers or the country expected. It is not equitable. My right hon. Friend says they can call up others.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Would you call up others?

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly not. I am pleading for a return to the principle of voluntary service, under conditions which, if it be true, as my right hon. Friend says, that there is still enormous danger ahead of us, the country I am sure would respond to. Why are these men to be retained in Germany on the Rhine and in other parts of the world? Is it—as they have been told, and as we have often been told in this House—to make the best job of the victory we have secured by collecting the costs of the War from the people who brought it about? They are to make sure of the indemnities for which we are striving to pay off the charges of the War. If these are not the reasons, why are they put there? They are not put there merely as ornament, or merely for parade purposes. It must be for some reason of substance in connection with the closing stage of the War, and I conclude it is in order that Germany shall be compelled properly to pay the bill she has incurred on account of the courses which she took until the War was ended.
If these men are to be, in the main, great debt collector? following the end of the War, I think they will naturally expect some better terms of service and higher rates of pay than have yet been promised to them as soldiers. The hon. and gallant Member who began the Debate to-day told us that the War was not yet over, and, so far as I gather, that was the only reason that he adduced to the House for asking for the Third Reading of this measure. Why was the General Election held? It was held because the War was over—at least so we were told—and now this Bill is wanted because we are told the War is not over. The War was over in order to get power for the Government. The War is not over in order to keep in the Army men against their will, men who volunteered for the Army merely for the duration of the War; and I am sure that no one would have been more astonished than the masses of the people, who gave their votes to the present Government, had they been told during the course of the election that a few months after the Government was installed in office this Bill to perpetuate Conscription, and to retain men in the Army against the bargain into which they had entered, would be introduced and forced through Parliament. It is the inequalities inherent in the measure which draw, at least from the benches on this side, opposition to the measure. It is not fair
that so many millions of men should be released, and so large a number retained against their will. It is not fair that the Government, as they are now doing, should be paying to a very large number of men a weekly sum, for doing nothing at all in this country, more than the soldiers are being paid abroad for rendering this high national service to the country. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to dispose of my statement, but I repeat that men are being paid out-of-work State contributions for doing nothing, which amount to more than what men are receiving for their work as soldiers in foreign lands.
We have repeatedly asked for a fuller statement of the Government's policy as to what these men are intended for in parts of the world other than Germany. Why are our soldiers to be kept in any part of Russia? What precisely is the policy of the Government policy in Russia? I agree with the criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson), when he referred to the slow pace of the Government in reaching a settlement with Germany on the main outstanding questions of the War. The impatience of the country is being manifested in many and eloquent forms. But it is not merely in respect of that that the country is being kept in the dark. In spite of the cries about open diplomacy, and the taking of the country into the confidence of the Government, we really know very little of the arrangements being completed by the Great Four who are settling these matters in Paris. Eventually, I suppose, there will be a statement made in this House which, as loyal followers of the Government, the House of Commons will be expected to support, and those who do not readily accept such statement will be taunted with a lack of patriotism and with not really appreciating the high national interest. I ask again, What is the Government's policy in relation to Russia? This is a question which is greatly disturbing the Labour mind in this country. My right hon. Friend in the course of the Second Reading of this measure gave us a very moving picture of the march of Bolshevism in various parts of Europe, and of the growing troubles from which we are not altogether free. I can assure him that an army such as might be recruited under this measure would be no defence against Bolshevism. Bolshevism is an ideal. It is mistaken. It
would be ruinous. It is tyrannical in its effects and in its application. But it is-an ideal, and if it is thought that working men in this country can be compulsorily recruited for the purpose of interfering with the internal affairs of the Russian people, I think my4 right hon. Friend will find, in practice, that there will be even stronger and more Vehement protests in working-class quarters than has been shown with regard to the Government policy on this Russian question.
I remember, in the course of my right hon. Friend's speech, he told us that there was a larger number of Army officers offering themselves for service in the Army than the Government could find places for. I would like to have some explanation. If it be true that you have a larger number of men to lead the Army, willing voluntarily to perform their duties, than you can find places for, surely there must be some inherent mistake, some inherent defect in the policy of the Government in relation to the rank and file of the Army, and if good and attractive conditions, now that the main burden of the War is over, are offered to men who have to fill the ranks, I am certain the response from the rank and filers will be as full and satisfactory as it may be from the officers. Our objection, then, to this measure is that it is a breach of faith with the electorate, that it perpetuates the vicious principle of compulsory service, and that it unfairly discriminates between those who are now in the Army and those who have left it. These, surely, are arguments against this measure which are entitled to more serious treatment than they have yet received from the Treasury Bench.

Major TRYON: I think the right, hon. Gentleman, in alluding to the General Election, should bear in mind also what was the attitude of the Labour party at that election on this question. In my Constituency I was opposed by Labour candidates, the official programme of whose party was, "The total discharge of Tommy, and the immediate repeal of the Military Service Act"; so that the electors were asked to vote for the Labour party and the immediate repeal of the Military Service Act. It is not to be very much wondered at that the electors, seeing the great danger such a policy involved, repudiated the policy of the Labour party. Can anyone conceive anything more dangerous than that a great party like the Labour party should solemnly pro-
pose to this nation, in November last, that the Military Service Act should be repealed and the whole Army disbanded? At a moment when our Army was holding a large part of the line the Labour party proposed the immediate discharge of the whole Army except such men as would volunteer to stop on. That did not seem a responsible position to take up on the part of a party claiming one day to conduct the government of this country, and I do not wonder the country repudiated it.
There is another point, which I do not think has been made in this Debate, and it is this. The whole of the opposition to the Government is that it is a Government advocating and introducing compulsory service. That is the exact opposite of the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I shall be very happy to prove it. This Amendment says that no efforts are being made by the Government to secure the objects of the Bill by voluntary means. The facts are perfectly well known to everybody in this House. What are they? First, it is well known that the Prime Minister has been making the most tremendous efforts in Paris to abolish compulsory service throughout Europe. Then the Government started, as long ago I think as last November, a system of bounties, costing a very large sum of money, to induce men to remain in the Army voluntarily. In some cases the Government was giving as much as £50 in order to get a man to stop in, and to start to form the new voluntary Army. That? shows the Government was not working with a view to future Conscription, but was endeavouring to start a new and voluntary Army. Moreover, the Government stopped recruiting more men for the Army by compulsion. Further, the Government has given increased pay to the men, and very much better conditions, and I would say to hon. Members opposite, in the presence of the House, that both the last speaker and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) do very little to help the voluntary service by misleading the country with regard to pay which these voluntary soldiers are to get. Everybody knows that the soldier, with the benefits which he gets in housing, food, clothing, and pay, is very much better off than the unemployed, and therefore to suggest, as they have done in this Debate, that the unemployed are better off than the soldiers,
is to discredit the voluntary system, which, I think, in their own interest, they ought to do everything in their power to help.
Nobody sympathises more than I do with the men who are now being kept in India, many of them old men, who have been out there two, three, and four years. There are men in Mesopotamia, men in Egypt, men in the East, who have been out far too long; but the way to get them home is to push on actively with this voluntary enlistment, which the Government is starting, and to help it, and not discredit it, as the right hon. Member for Derby did the other day in his speech. To say that this Bill is to effect compulsory service is misleading. The Government is starting a voluntary Army, giving bounties and better pay, and this is an arrangement to bridge the gulf between the compulsory service which has carried us through the War, and the Army of the future, which the Government is endeavouring to raise on a voluntary basis. In no sense can this Bill be held to be a Bill introducing for the future as our permanent national military system a system of compulsion. I have only one more comment to make, and that is, that it is a little unfortunate that those who began the Debate did not speak in the inverse order, because the hon. Member who spoke second proposed keeping men in the Army by a system of Orders in Council, whereas the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment spoke very strongly in favour of everything being done by Parliament. It seems to me that this is a perfectly fair way of putting before the country and the House a provision for bridging the gulf between the old compulsory system and the future policy which the Government is doing its very best to introduce and get to work.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. NEWBOULD: In the very brief remarks which I have to make, I appeal to the sympathy of the House which is so readily accorded to new Members when they make their first speech. I shall admit at once that I have very little that is new to say. That being so, I must either "point the moral or adorn the tale." The latter I shall certainly not attempt to do. The former I claim to do with some authority. I refer to the authority of the recent by-election. I was pledged up to the hilt to make known, at the earliest possible moment, to His
Majesty's Government and to this House the reason for that result. I do not wish to overstate my case. To accuse the Government, however, of deliberate breach of faith would be to state in the mildest possible manner, the views of those people who have sent me here. They have very decided views on the question of Conscription. I have seen very many reasons, not to say excuses and explanations, for the result of that election in West Leyton. The most general explanation was the unsuitability and past political record of the unsuccessful candidate. I think that is grossly unfair to a perfectly honest politician who was merely desirous of joining some hundreds of others in this House who hold similar views, and who have a similar political record.
I am here to tell the House emphatically—and I have abundant proof of this statement—that the result of the election in West Leyton was due mainly to this question of Conscription, and a Relief—rightly or wrongly held by the electorate—that they had been deliberately deceived. The transfer of votes was mainly composed of women and absent voters. The reason for that transfer was because the absent voter was being retained in the Army against his will, and because the wives and mothers of such men, who? were expecting them home, and had a right to expect them home, knew that in many instances they would not be able to return for some very considerable time. There is another aspect of this matter which, in my opinion, is very grave indeed—that is, the fact that there will be a large number of men retained in the Army who will have a grievance because they believe that they were entitled to be released on the signing of peace. These men will disaffect the remainder. I want to put this question very plainly to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Does he think that he can with justice hold a court-martial on a man for breach of discipline when the fact that the man is in the Army at all is due to a breach of faith? You cannot maintain the discipline of the forces on a broken pledge! This Army may crumble to pieces in the hands of those who control it at the moment when it is most vital to the country. We are always told that an alternative to Conscription has not been proposed. We seldom find what we do not seek, and you do not seek what you
do not want. I am going deliberately to say that the Government have not sought an alternative to Conscription, because they did not want such an alternative. That, then, is practically the message which I have to convey to the Government and the House from the people who did me the honour to send me here. In face of that result, and of another result which the House will hear of in the course of a week or so, if the Government proceed in carrying through this measure of Conscription they will do it without any mandate from the country—in fact, against the obvious will of the majority of the people of this country.

Major JAMESON: The objection to the present Bill is, I understand, that this country shall retain the military weapon which it finds to its hands. We have been four years in forging that weapon. It is the finest military weapon the country ever had. The question is whether we can now afford to throw it aside, and whether we are going now to disarm because its work is supposed to be done. I take it from speakers on the other side that it is not suggested that we can, in the negotiations which are at present proceeding, or in the general settlement of the world peace which is to follow that conference, afford to be without a weapon. Various other weapons, alternatives and so on, have been suggested. I think, however, it has not been suggested to-night, and I do not think it can be suggested, that we can do without a weapon, and can now afford to disarm this country—indeed, at the present moment it would be impossible to do that. When we see Bolshevism, like a devastating fire, sweeping over half Europe; when we have seen in the last week one great country, Hungary, lapped over by that fire, and submerged by it; when it is even now a matter of grave doubt as to whether or not Germany will welcome Bolshevism as a means of escaping from the retribution which she so justly deserves, then I say it behoves us to look ahead. An hon. Member on the other side said that Bolshevism was an idea, and that you would never be able to get the British working men to fight against an idea.

Mr. THOMAS: An ideal!

Major JAMESON: Well, whether it is an ideal or an idea, it is one, in my opinion, made in Germany. It was invented by the Germans, subsidised by
them. It was a great weapon in the Germans fighting the whole of civilisation. At the present moment it is still being used by German agents, still being subsidised by Germany. The Germans would appear to have great hope in it of escaping the consequences of the War they let loose upon the world. Bolshevism may be an ideal, but, as Poland has found to her cost, and as other countries which have the misfortune to surround Russia are finding, it is an odd one. It is an ideal which comes with a bomb in one hand and a rifle in the other, and the Chinese executioner not far behind. I say that in this state of affairs it would indeed be a perfectly suicidal thing if we were to disarm, especially when we find this great and most effective military weapon in our hands.
At the Second Reading of this Bill I observed a tendency to take the line that the danger was over, and that the world was at peace. But have we yet, and I think everybody will recognise it, to gather in the fruits of victory. We want to be faithful to the men who are in the Army just now. Nobody here will keep these men from their homes in the country they have served so well for one hour beyond what is necessary. But while we are faithful to these men, we do not want to be unfaithful to the men who fought and died for their country. We do not want to deprive the country of really establishing the peace of the world on a proper basis, and of getting from Germany what is justly due to us from Germany on account of her crimes. It would be impossible to disarm and then to write a letter to Germany and tell her that we want Dantzig, or that the Kaiser must come across to Great Britain to be hanged, or anything of that sort. We cannot afford to deal with Germany without a big stick in our hand. That is the object of this Bill. Other weapons have been suggested. The weapon of the Navy was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunfermline. The Navy of course, was in at the beginning of the War, and through it; but nobody has ever said that the Navy can put an end to the War. The hypothesis on which the wars of this country, every one, have proceeded is that the Navy could not possibly put an end to the War. Nobody in the Army, would for a moment minimise the
tremendous influence of the British Navy during the War. But the Navy alone cannot end the War.
Take the situation as it was in March of last year and the situation which emerged in November. In those five months there was a difference between threatened defeat—defeat which seemed so imminent—and victory absolute. What made the difference? It was not the Navy. Five months were not sufficient for the Navy to make the difference. An Army must end the War. The Navy can support the War and the Navy also must be there. It is the Navy which enabled the War to go on, which enabled this country to maintain the war, and enabled the country to bring pressure to bear upon the enemy. But to end the War we require an Army. Then there is the question of another alternative in a voluntary Army. We know that the Government have done their best to enlist soldiers by voluntary means. We know that failed—as it was bound to fail! We have read very wrongly the lessons of this War if we have not read that the voluntary system has failed, and failed utterly, and failed when every attempt was made to give it success. Every condition was there for success. There was the excitement of the time. The War was new. The spirit of adventure was abroad. There was the cry that the country was in danger. Then was the time certainly for voluntary enlistment and voluntary recruiting to have succeeded, if at any time. The voluntary system did not succeed. It broke down. How much more will it break down to-day? We know the soldier is tired. To use his own expression, he is "fed up" after all these years of war. Nobody can blame the soldier if he thinks he has had enough of it. Just when they were expecting to come back to their homes, back to the easy, pleasant life which they thought awaited them—I hope it will await them—back to their pre-war life, and away from the discipline and restraint of the Army. They all want to-come back. They have to remain. In that state of the soldier's feeling, when the excitement and novelty have worn off, you cannot expect the system of voluntary recruiting, which failed in the War, to be a success, even at the higher rate of pay—and the soldier, I am very glad to say, is getting better paid now. He is getting good pay, if you take into consideration his pay, his living, and the allowances to his dependants, and he has every right to it. The soldier on the Rhine has a
good right to what he is getting to-day. But the day when we can raise men by posters and bribery, as we tried to do, and failed, has gone for ever. There is no other way than this in which we can get a weapon into our hands. The Navy will not do it altogether. A voluntary Army will not do it altogether. You must have Conscription carried on. You must have the system of keeping in the Army the men who are there. Try to get new men if you can by a voluntary system, and then you can release more men, but you cannot afford to throw away the weapon which you have in your hand.
The other objection to the Bill was that at took the matter out of the hands of Parliament and put it into the hands of the military advisers of the Crown. In the state in which Europe finds itself now, and which will probably continue for an indefinite time, because it is impossible to say that there is peace in Europe—there is not peace. There are new countries being submerged in the War. There is tremendous strength in a new kind of war that has sprung up—not the war of Germany, but the war of Bolshevism, which in my R
Relief has Germany at the back of it. I quite agree that the Government will have to find out a policy to apply to the new situation in Europe, but when it has done that, then certainly the military advisers of the Crown are the people who have to lay down how many men exactly we want and how they are to be used. It is not a matter which you can bring before Parliament. It is a matter of from day to day expediency, and the military advisers of the Crown are the people to lay down the proper military policy of the Crown. We have earned golden opinions from our Allies. No country came into the War with higher ideals than we did, and no country has stood by these ideals more than we have done, but we cannot go now out of the fight and leave France to fight her own battles. It would be an indelible stain on this country to weaken the Army which is the method we must use to help France. France would take it as perfidy from us if we did anything to weaken the military power of this country to-day.
It is an extremely important thing even in connection with our Allies, even in the general negotiations of the Conference, that we should have this strong weapon of force in our hands against Germany in the first place—[An HON. MEMBER: "Against Bolshevism!"]—and, of course,
against Bolshevism, but no one can say that the weight which the representative of this country has at the Conference in Paris is not to a large extent due to the fact that this is now not only a great naval country but a great military country as well. Our ideals may be as great as you like. The Prime Minister may have tremendous personal weight, but what would be the difference if our Prime Minister was talking for one of the small nations, a nation like Belgium or Greece? Nobody could say then that he could carry such weight in the Conference as to impress upon Europe the ideals for which you have been fighting in this War as he does when he is the representative of a country like Britain, which is a tremendous military power at the present moment. Once we weaken our Army we at once weaken our position in the Conference in Paris. No one can say that we did not come into this War with great ideals. Of course we did. We stick to these ideals. We have never been in the War to make profit for ourselves. We have never been on the make, but we have certainly the right, when we have come through the War victorious, to see that the interests of Great Britain and the special ideals of Great Britain must receive proper respect and attention, and we cannot enforce that unless we have a strong weapon in our hands.
Nobody has a greater respect for the French nation than I have, but the French are a nation who can always be trusted both individually and collectively to look after No. I very well indeed. We are not on the make in this War, and have never been on the make, but we have got tremendous interests at stake in this Conference, and we must go into the Conference and keep in the Conference as a strong nation. A nation has to be taken into account, and when the League of Nations comes it will be only by the strong combination of Powers that it will be able to realise its ideals, and unless the League of Nations itself has in its hands this power it will be a futile thing altogether. We cannot afford to lay aside this great weapon which we have forged with so much difficulty. I am quite aware that in voting in favour of this Bill we are bound to lose something in the shape of votes, and on the other side, of course, there is a gain to be made in opposing a Bill like this. Nobody can say that we have a lack of sympathy with our soldiers or that we do not want to demobilise them
at the earliest possible moment, but we should be false to the great traditions of our country, false to our great actions in this War, and false to the men who lave suffered and fallen in this War if we did not finish the task which they took up, and carry to completion the victory which they have won. This is only to be done by keeping in our hands a strong and efficient Army.

Mr. J. PARKINSON: It is with a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to address the House, and I will claim its indulgence. The hon. Gentleman (Major Jameson) spoke about using the big stick, and I must say that I would rather be his superior than his servant. He also condemned the voluntary endeavours of this country. I wonder if he has forgotten that for the first three years the War was carried on entirely by voluntary efforts, and that it was not the failure of voluntary effort that brought about Conscription, but simply that voluntary effort was prevented owing to certain industries not being able to spare any more of their men for military service from having its full effect. I am speaking now as a representative of a mining constituency. I know that large numbers of men left these particular mines with a view to joining the Army, and were prevented from doing so. They would not be permitted to join the Army unless they had a certificate from the colliery manager stating that they could be spared from the mines. That would apply through all the mining districts of the country, and there would not be this opportunity of referring to the failure of the voluntary effort if the key industries of the country could have let their men go. The voluntary effort provided something like 5,000,000 men, which shows the wonderful response that was made by the people to the appeal that was addressed to them by the Government. In 1916 compulsory service may have become a necessity. I quite believe that it did. I did my best to help the country to get the men necessary for the War, and would do so again if the occasion arose, but I hope that such an occasion will never arise again.
But does the necessity which arose in 1916 extend after peace will be signed? The answer to that question is in the negative. The time will then have arrived when a very large number, practically all the people who joined under the National
Service Act, or under the appeals made from this House, should have the opportunity at least of terminating their service Since Armistice Day, there has been quite sufficient time to raise, by voluntary effort, the number of men required to police the line if proper methods had been adopted. If the authorities had been so keen in their desire to introduce voluntary methods as they have been in the past to introduce compulsory service, if they had been as desirous to carry it to a successful issue as they appeared to be when necessity demanded, then I am confident that they would have been able to get sufficient men by the voluntary method. Since the signing of the Armistice I do believe that with the improved conditions of service and increased pay they would have had to-day quite sufficient men without retaining the men who joined up for the period of the War only. It is well known that Conscription has been condemned by the Labour organisations of this country from time immemorial, the Trade Union Congress, the Labour Congress, the Mining Congress, and the conference of every organised labour body throughout the country has condemned Conscription. The Allies have been successful in destroying the military system of the greatest military country in the world, and we are introducing the same system into this country. We have killed Conscription in Germany, and we are bringing it into England. That is not the only point that troubles me. It has been stated this afternoon that there has been a direct breach of faith, and to me that is the worst feature of the whole business.
At the commencement of the War we blamed Germany for a breach of faith. The whole country was aflame because of what Germany had done. She had treated a treaty as a scrap of paper. That was a direct breach of faith. Everybody was agreed that Germany had done a wrong thing, and consequently we were incensed with her. It appears to me that the Government are breaking faith with the people of this country. Since the very beginning of the War they have stated that those who joined the forces would terminate their service at the end of the War, namely, at the signing of peace. Now after all these promises, commencing with the Army Council Order of 17th August, 1914, and followed by the Derby scheme of 1915–16, we find that men are to be retained until
30th April, 1920. Can those promises be ignored? If we blame another nation for a breach of faith, and if we expect other people to observe their obligations, we ought to observe our obligations to the people of this country. Hundreds of thousands of these men have been looking forward with the great glee to returning to civilian life to take up their old occupations, and they are now faced with a continuance of service until 30th April, 1920.
The industrial community resent this breach of faith, and it is the industrial community from which the bulk of the Army was withdrawn. The Government ought to be true to the pledges they gave the men when they joined the Army. The time has arrived when they ought to be given their liberty, and the Government by voluntary efforts ought to be able to secure the men necessary to police Germany. Unless the Government keep faith with the people, we cannot expect contentment to prevail among the industrial classes.
During the election the cry was "No Conscription." The people did not want Conscription. My Constituency is dead against it. I receive letters every post asking me to do all that I possibly can against the Conscription Bill. Everybody is appealing for the return of their children or their husbands. I have not the slightest doubt that the people of this country would meet all their obligations by voluntary effort. I believe that all the men necessary could be secured by voluntary means and without the aid of Conscription. Conscription ought now to end, and people who have served two, three, and four years abroad ought to have the opportunity of coming home and settling in industrial life. We are working for the reconstruction of England, and so long as we have so many people policing the Rhine we shall not have the people for the industries which are so essential if this country is to have the prosperity which it enjoyed prior to the War. We ask the Government not to press Conscription any further. We ask for a free England in the sense that England was free before the War. We ask that the people shall be given a free choice as to whether they will remain in the Army or return to civilian life. If the Government would give them that freedom it would go a long way to secure industrial contentment and to bring about that feeling between the industrial community and the country which will help to
build up the fortunes of the nation and re-establish the country on the pinnacle of prosperity, which it enjoyed prior to 1914.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I desire to congratulate the last speaker upon a fair and temperate statement of his point of view, and I was also interested to hear from the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. New-bould) the reason of his election so recently to this House. He told us that he won on the cry of "No Conscription!" Of course, it is a very easy thing to win a by-election on a cry of that kind. Nobody wants soldiers in a peace-loving country like ours. Therefore, a candidate who goes down to a by-election and says, "I am the man who is going to liberate all your sons now that the War is over "—he ought to know that the War is not over until peace is won—may very easily win the election, but he wins it at the expense of the eternal verities.

Mr. D. IRVING: That is how the Government won.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Government cry was "Return us to win the War and to win the Peace." That was the pledge upon which the Government were returned—to bring the War to a satisfactory conclusion. That was the superior pledge which overruled all other pledges, and it is in order to fulfil that pledge and carry it out to its logical conclusion that this Bill is necessary, deeply as all freedom-loving men must deplore it. The War has made no impression upon the benches opposite. They do not know what war is.

Mr. IRVING: Nonsense!

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why, hon. Gentlemen on the other side talk about equity and war in the same breath, as if there were any equity in war.

Mr. IRVING: Or in your charge!

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to keep up a running fire of comments. It is quite contrary to the usual courtesies of debate.

Mr. IRVING: So are these statements.

Mr. SPEAKER: No; the hon. Member is entitled to make his statements, and the proper way is to answer them in debate, not by a running fire of comments. That may be done in meetings outside, but it is not done here.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: War is the absolute denial of equity or justice or freedom, or
anything which we all love. The hon. Member for West Leyton talked about a court-martial and a breach of faith. Would it not be ten times a breach of faith to all the history of this country, to the men who went before us, and to those who are to come after us, if we were to throw away the means whereby we can bring this War to a successful conclusion, and it is not brought to a successful conclusion until we have absolutely secured that it can never again occur in our generation or for some generations hereafter? You cannot do that if you do not keep adequate forces. That is what Germany is biting on. If she saw us making no preparations for fresh breaches of faith would she not sit tight, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite had got their way and the French were left without any assistance, say, "We will try to get to Paris again. The third time is lucky. We will get there this time." That would be a serious breach of faith, a betrayal of this country and of the whole world. That is the supreme test. Can we dispense with this Bill? We cannot afford to take any risks. The Germans are great bluffers, but it may be, when they see that there is no possibility of us betraying our cause, that we shall get things satisfactorily settled, and get all that we have fought for. Surely it would be a gross breach of faith to throw the whole thing into the melting pot. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very fond of talking of democracy. We have the lessons of democracy in this matter. France is a democracy, and was before we were a democracy, and France has never failed to call upon her sons in the equitable way, "You shall all serve." She takes them all and makes no distinction. America is another great democracy. She did not waste any time over the voluntary system. She took all classes of the community at once. These are the lessons of democracy. Cannot hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the hint from the two oldest democracies in the world?
Take our own history. There never was anything but compulsion in our history for military services. Nelson's victory were won by men gathered by the Press-gangs. The Press-gangs were at work all during the French war, and they fought just as well as the men who went voluntarily. I have always believed that the conscript fought as well as the volunteer, because when he gets the
enemy in front of him he realises who it is that has conscripted him. It was the Germans who conscripted our men for all this long period of nearly three years. We hid our heads in the sand and made all sorts of appeals to all sorts of men, but at last the Germans conscripted the men, and it is the Germans who are forcing this Bill upon the country and not the British Parliament. We have been driven to it by necessity, and there is no use taking refuge in words. It was very unfair of the hon. Member to say that the Government did not want an alternative to Conscription. The Government have done their very best to find an alternative to Conscription, but if you raised an entirely new Army of men who had had no experience of this War they would be raw and would be of no real service until they had had actual experience of battle. One man who has been through this terrible conflict is worth two men who have had no experience. One hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Labour party has always been against Conscription. There is some truth in that, and I do not think that the soldiers have any occasion to thank the Labour party for it. It gave them a terrible time until they got the full companies of men they required. Was the cry "No industrial conscription" a just or fair cry when the rest of the community were con scribed? Why should one section of the community because they were put in khaki be subjected to Conscription, and another section because they were not put in khaki be at liberty to do what they like? There should have been Conscription at the beginning of the War; Conscription in everything. They should have said to all classes with any property, "Go to the nearest justice of the peace and make a sworn declaration of your possessions and at the end of the War make another declaration and account for the difference." There is no reason why something of that kind should not be done even now. Every man should have been taken. They should have been called up by some form of the Militia ballot. No one class in the community and no section of the community should have escaped. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not even the lawyers!"] There is no section of the community which has done more in this way than the ancient faculty to which I have the honour to belong. I repeat, one section should not have been taken and another allowed to escape. I am sorry
that at the beginning of the War the Government spent most of its time in declaring how innocent it was of the War and in boasting of its state of unpreparedness for it. It does not matter who begins a war. What matters is who is top dog at the end of the fighting. We are top dog so far, and we are not going to give up that position until the end is completely won. The Government by this Bill are trying to secure that end. I believe the boys on the Rhine will have a fairly useful time, and they certainly will not be exposed to the dreadful hardships which their brothers underwent early in the War. I do not believe in the charges of breaches of faith of which we have heard so much, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who for political purposes are trying to instil these poisonous ideas into their minds will cease doing so, but at any rate I feel confident that the souls of these young people are so healthy that they will only reject the poison. Those who do not assist the Government to-day are the ones who will be guilty of the greatest breaches of faith.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must apologise to the House for having so often to trespass upon its good nature. But the course of Parliamentary business during the last few weeks has accidentally involved the War Office at various points, and I have been forced to make incursions into the Debates of the House much more frequently, I trust, than will be necessary during the rest of this year. I have listened with great attention to this Debate, and I have heard hardly a single new argument from those who are opposing this measure. I also observe with great regret that the arguments which we have advanced, as we think with an overwhelming array of force and in inexhaustible variety, have apparently made not the slightest impression upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen who are opposing this measure. The maiden speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) was from beginning to end a mere dead-weight repetition of assertions. He said we had only to ask people to volunteer, and they would have been forthcoming. In no way, apparently, have we succeeded in conveying to them any fragment of our thought, or any great portion of our argumentative case; in no way have we succeeded in inducing them to take a differentview on this matter. But there was one new point referred to in this Debate by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace), who spoke a little while ago,
and who raised a most pertinent question. He asked how much is it all going to cost? How much are these Armies of Occupation going to cost? At the present time we are spending on the Army over £400,000,000. I must confess I am very much surprised: that the arguments and comments of the Front Bench opposite have not referred to this aspect of the question before.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: It has been done repeatedly.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have listened to the Debates, not only in the House but in the Grand Committee, and I have not in the course of those Debates heard any reference made to the financial point which was very properly put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline. I think his question is an extremely pertinent one, and I should like to give the House a few figures on the financial aspect, because it may be possible thereby to sweep away exaggerations of the Press and to disentangle the actual cost of the Army of Occupation from the general terminal charges of winding up the War and to show how much extra financial burden is thrown on the country thereby. The financial year begins at midnight to-night, and the Estimates for 1919–20 provide £506,500,000 for the Air Forces and the Army, including the Army of Occupation. That is the tremendous total, and I can understand it may excite apprehension. But let us analyse these figures, and see what belongs to the Army of Occupation and what belongs to the-terminal charges of the War. First of all, the gratuities that fall due for payment to officers and men of the Army during the financial year 1919–20 amount to £65,000,000. The charges for winding up the munition contracts which were running when the Armistice was signed amount to £39,000,000. The completion of works undertaken in the War and regarded as inadvisable to scrap amounts to £7,000,000. Bringing over troops from all parts of the world for de-mobilisation is estimated to cost £25,000,000. The enforced maintenance until transport can be provident of a larger number of men than those actually provided for in the Armies of Occupation—we have a large number on our pay-list whom we are trying to divest ourselves of as quickly as possible—all these services, including the period of furlough for the men, are estimated to cost £35,000,000. Bounties to the new
voluntary Army are put down at £4,000,000. The Salvage Army, which is doing such extremely remunerative work in France—the men looking after the motors and horses to be sold, the men engaged on the demobilisation machinery—these involve a charge on the State of £48,000,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What are they salvaging?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are many hundreds of millions' worth of stores which are being realised. I will refer to that later on. I say that these men who are looking after the motors and horses and our stores and supplies in France, and who are engaged in the work of de-mobilising the Army, are estimated to cost £48,000,000. There are remaining on our hands, I am? sorry to say, sick and wounded in the great War, and the care and cure of them involve an addition of £12,000,000 to the Estimate. The issue of medals to the Army will cost about £2,500,000. The plain clothes to be given to the soldiers on discharge are estimated at £6,000,000. The restitution of property taken over by the Government during the War for purposes of defence and training and the putting it in order again is estimated to cost £6,000,000. The maintenance of prisoners of war is estimated at £4,000,000, and these items give a total of £253,500,000, representing inevitable terminal charges of the War out of a total of £506,500,000, curiously enough exactly one-half of the total gross estimate for the Air Forces and the Army. I think the House will be interested in this catalogue. Therefore the total cost of the Army of Occupation is not £506,500,000, but £253,000,000. Against that we have Appropriations in Aid, excluding the charges which we make against Germany for the cost of our Army on the Rhine and certain other charges connected with the Colonies. These Appropriations in Aid are estimated at £50,000,000, and therefore the total net cost of the Army of Occupation, including the Air Force is not £506,500,000 but £203,000,000. That is a very formidable figure, and there is no need to darken counsel by exaggerating it.
7.0 P.M.
Let us compare £203,000,000 with the cost of the pre-war Army, including the Air Force and Royal Naval Air Service. That cost in the last year before the War was £30,000,000, but if that Army had been
paid at the present rate it would have cost £46,000,000 for the same number of officers and men, and if the prices which we have to pay for food, clothing and supplies had been then as they are now the cost would have been not £46,000,000 but £57,000,000. Therefore the true comparison is not as we have been told in a great many organs of public guidance to believe it is, not as between £506,000,000 and £30,000,000, but as between £203,000,000 on the one hand and £57,000,000 for the pre-war Army on the other. If we deduct the charges we are entitled to recover from Germany for the upkeep of the Army on the Rhine after the Armistice, charges which rank very high in priority of claim and which therefore have a much greater chance of being paid than the more ambitious claims which figure lower down on the list, if we deduct those charges from the total they are calculated to amount to about £70,000,000. Therefore the cost of the Armies of Occupation would fall on this showing to £133,000,000 net, as against a true comparable pre-war equivalent of £57,000,000. For this difference of £76,000,000 we are holding not only all our own Empire, but our position in Europe by the Army which we are maintaining on the Rhine and, for the time being, we are holding very large portions of the Turkish dominions. Let me point out—and we really must not overlook the money side of the question, although it may be overlooked by the economists on the Front Bench opposite—that this £133,000,000 compares with about £1,500,000,000 which was the comparable net expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Ministry of Munitions in the last twelve months of the War—comparable expenditure. Therefore, so far from the House blaming the War Office and the Air Ministry for not having succeeded in effecting substantial reductions of their expenses in the transition from war to peace, we ought really to be congratulated on having reduced our expenditure to one-tenth of what is was only a few short months ago. Let me add that the amount to be recovered and realised almost entirely by military agency in regard to salvage and other matters is calculated at so high a figure—I do not attempt to give it exactly, but it certainly will pay two or three times over for the whole of the cost of the Army of Occupaion during the present year. None of this really could have been obtained without the victory which
we have won, and none of this could be realised if we were to throw that victory away.
The hon. and gallant Member who seconded this Amendment told us that there was no need or necessity for this Bill, we could have got round it, he said. The Act which enables Parliament to fix the termination of the War at any date it pleases, he says, was quite sufficient authority; you have only got to postpone the date until you think fit, and you can hold as many men as you please. What an argument to put forward! I was very glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend deal with that argument. In the first place it is wrong in fact.

Major HAYWARD: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but he has quite missed the point I made. If he substitutes an Order in Council in his Bill as the real authority, which shall exercise the powers under this Act then as he has the Order in Council under the Termination of the War Act, he will be quite safe in the meantime, and can come back when he does know the position and restate the case.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman particularly quoted the Act fixing the termination of the War. He said: You can make this date what you like; therefore why have a Bill? Simply put a fictitious date in when the time comes and you can hold the whole of the men. But that is, of course, far less straightforward and far more drastic than anything' which the Government is proposing. So much for there being no legal necessity. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government would not have thought it necessary to bring forward this Bill if they had not satisfied themselves of the actual legal position. The next argument advanced is that there is no national emergency. I really do not know by what variant of words, by what renewal of argument I can impress upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite the abundant, imperious necessity by which we are faced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Imperial.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not afraid of its being called an Imperial necessity. The day has, I hope, gone by when we are ashamed of paying proper regard to Imperial necessities. But how can any man say that be is unaware of the necessities by which we are confronted? From
the White Sea to the Caspian at the present moment a whole broad band of Europe is smouldering or flaming, or even exploding. That is the fact. Along the whole of that front Bolshevik armies are attacking. The little States—Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the new State of Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Roumania—all these countries are in direst straits.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why not feed them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really think my hon. and gallant Friend must allow me to make my speech. An hon. Member says, what business is it of ours? Is it really to be supposed that we have no interest in seeing the world coming to a peaceful settlement and coming to rest after its long travail; have we fought all these years and spent so many millions and cast away so much precious life, and then have we no interest in seeing the world come into a peaceful state? The moment we have divested ourselves of our military force, the moment all the great Allies have done that, they are powerless to intervene or to exercise the slightest influence upon the course of events all over Europe. Germany and Austria are, at the present time, in an attitude which is half defiance, half despair. They threaten at one moment a vast, passionate refusal to acquiesce in the result of the War, and threaten at another moment to slide into hopeless anarchy by a military alliance with Bolshevism. Hungary has already broken the terms of the Armistice and defied the victorious Powers. Bulgaria has made military movements in the last few weeks to strengthen her forces in the neighbourhood of Roumania in a manner which has excited very significant comment. So far as Egypt is concerned, we have had to take the step of stopping the demobilisation which was in progress, on the request of General Allenby, and it has been necessary to reinforce that country by troops brought from various other quarters. The necessity with which we are faced is to keep certain forces in occupation of the territories for which we are for the time being responsible, or which belong to us. We have to keep certain garrisons there during this stormy period of convulsion. We have also—England, with France and the United States—to keep an Army of a certain size on the Rhine, which shall be strong enough to
secure the peace settlement, and to see that that settlement is not merely agreed to and ratified, but is reasonably carried out. That is the necessity. How can I state that more plainly? My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) asked if we are keeping an Army on the Rhine as a debt collecting agency? No, certainly not! The Prime Minister has laid down that we will not so handle this question of indemnity that we should on that account be forced to keep, for many long years, large forces to collect it. That was stated repeatedly by my right hon. Friend at the election. But how any man, seeing the state of the world at the present time, and the importance of the issues that are being decided, can grudge the British Government and the Allies the possession of certain moderate military forces in Europe to exact compliance with the results of the War and the fulfilment of the terms of the treaty, to enable us to handle the situation with the sincere desire to see this age of strife pass away—how any man can grudge that, and why any man with my right hon. Friend's experience can challenge that at the present time, passes my comprehension.
Are these forces for which we are asking too large for the task they have to do? I am going to give the House a few figures showing exactly where these forces are. I am going to give the figures—not exact figures, but approximate figures—as I think, perhaps, that is more to our interest to do. There are figures from which an opinion can be formed. We contemplate under the Armies of Occupation—we have a larger force now, but we are getting rid of it as quickly as we can—after the period of demobilisation is over, under the Armies of Occupation there will be, in Great Britain, 176,000 men; in Ireland, 44,000 men; in France, engaged in clearing-up work of a non-combatant character, 120,000 men. In Germany, the Army of the Rhine consists of 264,000 men. In Italy there are 10,000 men. Someone has said, What do we want these 10,000 men there for? When one follows the course of the lamentable controversy, which I hope will be adjusted, between the Italians and the Jugo-Slavs, it is a precious asset to have a small force of British troops there in many localities where troops of no other nation will be.

An HON. MEMBER: Monstrous!

Captain BENN: Are the troops to be used to fight the Jugo-Slavs?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Captain BENN: Or the Italians?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Really, the hon. and gallant Member must contain himself. He is not in the air now. We have been asked to provide, in conjunction with our other Allies, the French, a small force of troops there who represent elements not at all intrigued in the conflicts or disputes in progress there; troops who can prevent trouble between the local populations by merely, in some cases, arriving there and putting both sides at their ease during this period when you are-trying to settle matters. Of course, they are there by the request and desire of both parties, who feel otherwise that by firing or a fracas which might lead to loss of life, a grave situation might open up. There are no troops in the world, probably, who are doing a more beneficent task than these. In the Middle East and the Caucasus we shall have 75,000 men—in the Balkan area and in the Caucasus—and that force, I hope, may be substantially reduced in the near future. These men are not fighting; they went into these territories to expel the Turks and the Germans, and they are there merely trying to keep the people from flying at each others throats until the League of Nations or the Paris Conference can reach a conclusion as to their final force. I hope that may be substantially reduced. In Egypt and Palestine there will be about 60,000 men. In Mesopotamia we are keeping 30,000 men, in that enormous region, until just lately, of prolonged and protracted struggle.
In India and Aden we have our regular garrison of between 60,000 and 70,000 men. Then there are in the defended ports and in the North of Russia and in Siberia—in all of those three I am carefully avoiding giving an absolutely clean cut figure, although I have observed that figures have been given which are more precise in another place—there are something like 20,000 men. So that out of a total of 859,000 British troops whom we contemplate should form the Armies of Occupation during this critical year, there are 20,000, some of whom are at present in various parts of Russia and the Caucasus. I hope that, at any rate, will give some sense of proportion to the Debate and will show to hon. Gentleman opposite and
the country—for if we cannot convince hon. Gentlemen by our Debate we can convince and reassure the country—that so far from this measure being required in order to enable us to carry out some purposes in Russia or some expedition to Russia, even if Russia did not exist the measure would have to be passed. It is only an insignificant fraction of the troops raised by this Bill who are at present, by circumstances well known to the House, in occupation of certain points of the Russian Empire.
I have given this figure of 892,000, which covers the British troops in the Armies of Occupation all over the world, as the number which we propose under this measure. But from those you should deduct about 208,000 men who are really not combatants in any sense. They are men employed at dispersal stations, employed in the transport of the Army Service Corps, excluding supplies, employed in the transportation branch and who are employed in the care of remounts, and transport and so forth. So that really what we have got available to keep the British Empire safe, these Islands safe, to keep peace and tranquility throughout those immense regions which have fallen into our hands during the course of the War, to secure the fulfilment of the Peace Treaty and to enable us, in conjunction with our other Allies, to influence the settlement of Europe in a manner which will be agreeable to its future peace—for all these purposes the total number of troops we propose to keep for our purposes does not exceed 650,000 men. Does the House consider that is an, exaggerated over insurance? Does anyone on the Front Opposition Bench say that these totals are beyond what is necessary and beyond what a wise, prudent and practical man would provide to safeguard our interests during this present year? I do not believe my right hon. Friend would say that that figure struck him as being grossly excessive having regard to all that is going on and to our needs and difficulties. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would consider it to be an absurd or wrong figure. What they say is, "You ought to get them by voluntary means." Do let us face the facts. It is absolutely impossible to get 890,000 men—the others are just as necessary as the fighting men—by voluntary means before the Peace Treaty is ratified—[a laugh]—unless war breaks out again and the Treaty is not ratified for any
length of time—but assuming that all goes as we hope it will and that before the end of the summer or before we are far through the autumn the Treaty is ratified—not merely signed but finally ratified—supposing that sort of result is reached, we could not get one quarter, of the men who would be needed by the voluntary system.
We have got now, by the efforts we have-made and which have been very great efforts and costly efforts from the point of view of the State, a total of about 70,000 new recruits and re-enlisted men. In addition to that, 6,000 men of the Army on the Rhine have signed on for another year. We have done our best in one way or another for three months trying by every channel open to us to secure these men. That is all we have got. I should imagine it is absolutely true to say that whatever we do, whatever exertions we make, we would not at present, when everyone is tired of the War and militarism and wants to get home, back to his work—I heartily sympathise with them—when that feeling is abroad and no one has the feeling of vital danger that existed formerly, we have absolutely no chance whatever of securing more than one quarter of the men we need at the time peace is ratified. My right hon. Friend said we were paying in unemployment benefit more than we were paying our men at the front. I do not see how that could possibly be. As I told the House the other day, a man with a wife and two children, if he was in the Army on the Rhine, was receiving in kind in every consideration—clothing, food, lodging, separation allowance, medical attendance and fuel—approximately 79s. a week, while the single men were calculated to be receiving 49s. a week. I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend that perhaps the scale of the unemployment benefit at the present time is higher than is needed. But I have never heard of anything in the neighbourhood of the figures I have quoted and which the Army in one way or another is undoubtedly receiving.
What more can I say of the necessity? I would ask my right hon. Friend, if the figures which I have quoted are not unreasonable—they are thought to be the minimum for which the Cabinet could make themselves responsible after hearing all that their military advisers have to say—if those figures are not unreasonable,
if the ratification of the Peace Treaty is to come before we can possibly create a voluntary Army, if there is no means out of the elements in this country of creating a voluntary Army now the great struggle is not going on, which will be large enough for this purpose—if all these things are true, what force would he, as a responsible statesman, adopt to face this emergency? My right hon. Friend said that, little as he liked this Bill, he would rather have it than no Army at all, by which he means no Army capable of doing what that means. I am quite sure he would not. I am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend were confronted with these matters he would come boldly forward and say that we have to look to what is in front of us, we have to view the actual practical difficulty, and we are not going to throw away the advantages we have gained, and we have got to carry this Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, if that is the conviction in the hearts of almost every serious man on the Opposition Benches, is it not a very cheap thing, knowing that the Bill is going to be passed and that other shoulders are going to bear the burden, to come along and endeavour to add to any weight of public misapprehension which may be excited by the passage of the Bill? Those who have opposed this Bill, so far as their speeches go—I quite admit that in their hearts they take a different view—have shown themselves utterly unconscious of the state of the world and have shown a significant detachment alike from the interests of this country and the interests of other countries. They have to a very large extent taken the position of my hon. and gallant Friend, of which he is the exponent, that, now the War is over and the Armistice has been signed, nothing else remains, that you can let everything rip in every quarter of the world. Russia is to stew in heir own juice, as he said the other night, or to stew us in her juice if she chooses. As for Poland, who cares for Poland? Let her shift for herself! Austria and Hungary have only to call themselves Bolsheviks to escape altogether from the consequences of the War, and to overrun anybody's territory in the name of Bolshevism that they may feel inclined to do! Roumania, who fought so gallantly in the War and suffered so much, she should be left to her fate! As to the little States I have mentioned, who have appealed to the
League of Nations for protection and who have in one form or another been given a considerable amount of recognition and encouragement by the victorious Powers who will constitute the main part of the League of Nations, let them shift for themselves, unless, that is to say, the Germans will go to help them! As for Germany, the fact is that on the proposals which are put forward by this Amendment from the other side of the House, Germany has only to ratify the Peace Treaty to decree the destruction of the British Army. If we are to do what we are urged to do, the moment that Germany signs that Treaty in final ratification, that very moment we should lose all power to secure its final execution.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say if that does not apply in case we do not ratify?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the hon. Gentleman propose that we should go on for ever delaying the ratification of peace?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Not for ever.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But for months and months until we have a voluntary Army? What the world needs is a ratified peace. Our responsibility is not only with regard to the countries in whose affairs we have been interfering in the course of the War, but even in regard to countries for which we were responsible before the War broke out. If there are disorders in Egypt, what did the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) say? It is all the fault of the ignorant, stupid soldiers who are misgoverning the country! Why has my hon. and gallant Friend formed such a bad impression of those who such a little while ago were glad to be his comrades? I do not believe that our military officers are ignorant in these matters. At any rate, they are more in demand in every country in the world, both British soldiers and British generals, as law-givers and peace-preservers, than the troops of any other country. As a matter of fact, British rule, under which Egypt has prospered so enormously, has never been a military rule—it has been a civil rule.

Captain BENN: Until 1914.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all. Even after 1914, and until, owing to the state of the country, exceptional powers were taken, the administration of the country has been conducted through the civil authorities, and in the provinces of Egypt
the administration has been almost exclusively conducted by the native officials who were conducting it in times of peace. Does not that show the mood in which my hon. and gallant Friend and those who act with him approach this case? I really do not understand where the hon. and gallant Gentleman can. We have been fighting during the whole of the War to gain certain objects, but the moment the fighting has stopped he uses his utmost energies to cast those objects away. If they have shown themselves unconscious of the state of the world at present they have also shown themselves impervious to the arguments we have endeavoured to address to them. If the course of policy they advocate were to be carried out, it is literally true, and no one in the Debate has successfully challenged the argument, that the Army in every part of the world would cease to exist, and would be released from its allegiance as a military force on the day the Peace Treaty was ratified.
That is the policy which the dissentient Liberals press upon us—what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thorne) called a narrow small minority. A minority may be small—that may not be its fault—but it has no need to be narrow. When we remonstrate with them they reply repeatedly, "West Leyton." Again and again in these Debates we have had this taunt thrown at us, and they apparently regard the West Leyton by-election as the all-sufficing explanation of their action, and indeed its complete vindication. But what would the people of this country say if they found in a year or two, perhaps earlier, when this Parliament has run more of its life than it has at present, that we had absolutely muddled away through weakness or cowardice or want of candour, all the fruits which our Army gained in the War. They would give us a condemnation which would not be a condemnation of an accidental by-election in a particular constituency but which would be a universal and final condemnation of all the constituencies of the United Kingdom at a General Election, and which would be a condemnation not only universal and overwhelming but absolutely deserved. This Parliament has come together to pilot the ship of State through the most perilous and difficult seas amid which we live, and to bring that ship and its precious cargo with all the fruits of victory into a peaceful harbour. If we can show that we have done this when the time comes we shall not need to
be afraid of what the verdict will be. I have always noticed, as far as my experience goes and so far as my readings of history serve me, that in this country whatever has got to be done somehow or other is done. It may be done rapidly, grudingly perhaps, but at any rate it is done, and in vital matters what has had to be done has hitherto been done before it was too late. It is quite true there have on all sort of occasions been found in this country weak and degenerate elements which strove by every means in their power to hamper the efficiency of national action and to delay action which was vitally and urgently needed in the interests of the State and which has always counselled us to courses of imprudence and of neglect and often of base surrender, but there have also been found in this country on all occasions strong, solid, stable, resolute forces in all classes all over the country which have been sufficient in their own way to overcome and to bear down the councils of weakness, and they have been found strong enough to carry on their own shoulders the fortunes and the interests of the State and so secure that whatever was indispensable to the safety and the honour of our country was, in fact, granted to the responsible Government of the day. It is to these forces that the House in the Division which is soon to come will make a notable contribution?

Captain BENN: I anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would speak at the end of the Debate, but at the time he did speak many hon. Members were waiting to take part, and I did not anticipate that the Debate was coming to an end, so that I apologise to the House for appearing to invert the ordinary order. But I am sure the House will wish to give an opportunity to those who oppose this Bill with sincerity and conviction. The House always shows itself, as you, Sir, reminded us at the time of your election, tolerant in the extreme to views that it does not agree with, and therefore I conceive it will listen while I attempt to make all the points we have to make against this Bill. In the first place, it would be as well if hon. Members who support this Bill were to refrain from claiming a monopoly of patriotism. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) made a speech which I thought utterly unworthy of him. He claimed, and the claim so repeated by the right hon. Gentleman was first made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest), that
they and they alone are the true patriots, and that we are only actuated by the basest motive to win by-elections, or to court a cheap popularity, and that we have not instinct in our hearts the same love for our country as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If anyone says I do not love my country I make no reply. The arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward have been repeatedly used during these Debates, and really have no bearing whatever upon the issue raised in the Bill. He talks about Hungary, and about the Germans not being willing to sign peace, and in fact he actually talked about the Germans marching to Paris. These right hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that until peace is signed and ratified, both by the Germans and by ourselves and by every other party to this War, the whole of the military force which has been raised in the last four years, amounting to millions, is at the disposal, and gladly and willingly at the disposal, of the right hon. Gentleman. So it is an idle argument and it is throwing dust into the eyes of the nation to talk about disturbances from the White Sea to the Caspian in view of the millions of men he has under his influence by the Act of 1916. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with this.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What millions have I got?

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has the whole Army that was raised under the Act of 1916. He has 1,300,000 people under arms at present, and I presume he has the power to recall the men who have been demobilised but not discharged. As I understand it, the power that the right hon. Gentleman holds is over the whole Army as raised for the War. That Army remains in being until peace has been ratified and until the Order in Council has been made deciding that the end of the War has come. So that we must put aside all these arguments about the disturbed state of Europe, the world in flux, and so on, as having nothing whatever to do with the issue we are raising to-night. [Interrupton.] No doubt the hon. Member for Birkenhead will translate into the courtesies of debate the intervention which he is making. The right hon. Gentleman constantly says, "What is your alternative to the continuation of the Military Service Act?" He has given us a number of
figures. He particularly referred to an intervention which I made some days ago in reference to Egypt. I hesitate very much to mention this subject, and I certainly should not have done so if the right hon. Gentleman had not raised it, because I would not willingly appear to give encouragement to those who are finding fault with our Government in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question himself, and my reply is that a peaceful Egypt in 1914 is an Egypt, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, in insurrection in 1918. That is the result of four years of partly martial law. The right hon. Gentleman says, "What is your alternative to the continuation of this Act?" He says, "Have you an alternative?" We have a reasonable ground for supposing that an alternative is possible because the Government themselves at the election said, "The Military Service Act will lapse and there is no intention to renew it." I have no reason to suppose the Government was deceiving the country, and I assume, therefore, that those statements were made with some possibility of terminating the state of affairs. That, at least, is a fair assumption. Many hon. Members are supporting this because they believe it is a temporary Bill. Many hon. Friends of ours are supporting it because they say "it is a bad Bill, but it is only to last until 1920, and surely we cannot object to a Bill which is for so short a period and which is so necessary for garnering the fruits of victory." My hon. Friends (Mr. Macquisten and Major Jameson) made speeches in support of the Bill which I am sure could not have been very gratifying to the right hon. Gentleman. They laid bare the whole plan. They supported it because they said, "Lay down our armed forces now? No. Our greatness depends upon the greatness of our military power, and it would be folly to give it up just at the moment of success." If that is the support that is forthcoming for the Bill—and I have no doubt a great deal of the support is based on those grounds—it is a Bill which should not be supported also by those who do it merely on the ground that it is a temporary measure which must come to an end in a few months time. The Secretary of State for War speaks with scorn of returning to the slender basis of 1914. We are never to go back to the slender basis of 1914.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): He did not say that.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentlemen, of course, speaks with more knowledge than I do of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, but the expression "slender basis of 1914" was the expression used by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill), and our fear is that this Bill is committing us to a much greater military preparation than this country is justified in undertaking. It is fair to assume that on the basis of the preparations that we make, our Allies will make their preparations. The "Daily Chronicle" said recently that the necessity for the Armies of Occupation was a matter of agreement between the associated Powers on the basis of expert advice, and it would obviously be a step of the utmost gravity if Great Britain or any of the other five principal Powers were to cut adrift from the common decision of the Association in so vital a matter. We are now making an obligation for our Allies which this House will be quite powerless to discard in April. 1920. Supposing that they have made their calculations upon the same basis, and supposing that in April, 1920, it is impossible to secure the men by voluntary means, what other course will be open to the Government save to come to this House to continue this Bill for another year? That may be a course which hon. Gentlemen will be prepared to support. I do not know, but I imagine it would be one which this House, as a whole, would support. But I would remind hon. Gentlemen who are supporting this Bill as a temporary measure of this very grave risk, that instead of this being a temporary measure, it is, in fact, a commitment from which later we shall be unable to escape.
In a covenant of the League of Nations one Clause provides that each country shall only maintain an armed force that is a minimum consistent with national safety. "We shall be a party, I presume and hope, to that covenant. We, an island, seagirt, and not depending for our life upon an armed force, consider that the minimum that is consistent with our national safety is 900,000 men. That being so, what will be the calculation made by the Continental Powers? If they base their calculation on the same figure, and the smaller countries in the Balkans do likewise, the result will be that Europe after the War, with Germany prostrate, will be armed to the teeth, with a force far greater than existed before the War took place. That
is the fear which we have in our minds. The Prime Minister has gone to Paris to engage upon a League of Nations, and, as he says himself, and as the heads of other Governments say, "to try to persuade all the nations of the world to give up Conscription." He goes to Paris, and the first nation to pass a legislative enactment to continue Conscription is our own nation. Is it unreasonable to think that if we are going to continue the mad race of armaments the League of Nations will in fact become a farce, and the prospect of universal peace will vanish? If hon. Gentlemen vote for this Bill under the impression that it is a temporary measure, are they quite sure, are we not justified in fearing that in April next year we shall find that the vested interests which have been built up, that the pressure of our Allies, that perhaps even the ambitions of this country and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, may prove what I have said, that we have taken an irretraceable step?
The right hon. Gentleman asks what is our alternative. The alternative in the matter of armaments is the same as in the matter of finance. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. We contend that the right hon. Gentleman has not tried to the full the voluntary system. One argument which he has not used, but which has some weight, is that the merits of the case itself play an important part in determining the success or failure of voluntary effort. If we have a good cause, volunteers are quickly forthcoming. If the nation has no faith in the cause, volunteers are not forthcoming. My contention is that that in itself is a wholesome check upon the military expeditions of any country. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen who support this Bill have said that it is a Bill for giving us the fruits of victory. What are the fruits of victory? In 1914 a great moral wave swept over this country, comparable perhaps to nothing since the time of the Great Crusade. Men went out in their thousands. They went willingly to fight. What did they fight for? I may define their objects in these words, "We shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts, for democracy, for the rights of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, and for the universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as will bring safety and peace to the nations, and will make
the world itself at last free." The spirit behind the opposition to this Bill is not the spirit of pacifism. It is not the spirit which was opposed to the War. The same motives that impelled men to come forward and to fight are the motives that impel them now to oppose this Bill. They went abroad to try to dispel Prussianism and Sergeant Majordom, and in the same spirit they will oppose Prussianism if it finds its place in our own plans and in our own councils. They oppose this Bill

because it appears to us, though small yet insidious, to be a step in a course which will rob us of the fruits of victory and which will be a prop to a policy which would shut the gates of mercy on mankind.

Mr. BONAR LAW: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 61.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)


Archdale, Edward M.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hanson, Sir Charles


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)


Atkey, A. R.
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Henderson, Major V. L.


Baird, John Lawrence
Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hennessy, Major G.


Baldwin, Stanley
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gordon


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.


Barnston, Major Harry
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.


Barrie, C. C.
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Davidson, Major-General J. H.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hood, Joseph


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)


Betterton, H. B.
Dennis, J. W.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Bigland, Alfred
Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Hudson, R. M.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Bird, Alfred
Donald, T.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Blades, Sir George R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurd, P. A.


Blair, Major Reginald
Duncannon, Viscount
Inskip, T. W. H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edgar, Clifford
Jameson, Major J. G


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Jesson, C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Com.
Jodrell, N. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Falcon, Captain M.
Johnson, L. S.


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Breese, Major C. E.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Joynson-Hicks, William


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Kellaway, Frederick George


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.


Burdon, Col. Rowland
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
King, Com. Douglas


Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Knight, Capt. E. A.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Knights, Capt. H.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)


Campion, Col. W. R.
Glyn, Major R.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Gould, J. C.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Carr, W. T.
Grant, James Augustus
Lloyd, George Butler


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Gray, Major E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Lort-Williams, J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Green, A. (Derby)
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Greer, Harry
Lyle Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Greig, Col. James William
Lynn, R. J.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gretton, Col. John
Lyon, L.


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Griggs, Sir Peter
M'Guffin, Samuel


Clyde, James Avon
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mackinder, Halford J.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)
Macmaster, Donald


Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Hall, Admiral
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.


Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.
Hallas, E.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Martin, A. E.


Middlebrook, Sir William
Raeburn, Sir William
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Rankin, Capt. James S.
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Mitchell, William Lane-
Raper, A. Baldwin
Tickler, Thomas George


Moles, Thomas
Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.
Townley, Maximillian G.


Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Tryon, Major George Clement


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Morris, Richard
Reid, D. D.
Vickers, D.


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Walker, Col. William Hall


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Mosley, Oswald
Rowlands, James
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Mount, William Arthur
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Whitla, Sir William


Murchison, C. K.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Nall, Major Joseph
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Seager, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Parker, James
Simm, Col. M. T.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)


Pearce, Sir William
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Winterton, Major Earl


Percy, Charles
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Perkins, Walter Frank
Steel, Major S. Strang
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Perring, William George
Stephenson, Col. H. K.
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Stevens, Marshall
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton
Stewart, Gershom
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Pratt, John William
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Younger, Sir George


Preston, W. R.
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.



Pulley, Charles Thornton
Sutherland, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Purchase, H. G.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Arnold, Sydney
Hurst, Major G. B.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, C. H.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E. C.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Briant, F.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cairns, John
M'Callum, Sir John M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Casey, T. W.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wallace, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.


Devlin, Joseph
Neal, Arthur
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Newbould, A. E
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
O'Connor, T. P.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Grady, James
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Glanville, Harold James
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.



Hartshorn, V.

Question put accordingly,
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 64.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)
Brittain, Sir Harry E.


Archdale, Edward M.
Betterton, H. B.
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Bigland, Alfred
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)


Atkey, A. R.
Birchall, Major J. D.
Burdon, Col. Rowland


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Bird, Alfred
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)


Baird, John Lawrence
Blades, Sir George R.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)


Baldwin, Stanley
Blair, Major Reginald
Butcher, Sir J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Campbell, J. G. D.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Borwick, Major G. O.
Campion, Col. W. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)


Barrie, C. C.
Bowles, Col. H. F.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Carr, W. T.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Ballairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Brassey, H. L. C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Parker, James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Pearce, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Henderson, Major V. L.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Hennessy, Major G.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Percy, Charles


Clyde, James Avon
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Perkins, Walter Frank


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Perring, William George


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton


Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Hood, Joseph
Preston, W. R.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Raeburn, Sir William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Rankin, Capt. James S.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hudson, R. M.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Hurd, P. A.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)


Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Reid, D. D.


Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Jameson, Major J. G.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Japhcott, A. R.
Rowlands, James


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jodrell, N. P.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)
Johnson, L. S.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General J. H.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W. (Dublin Univ.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Seager, Sir William


Denison-Pender, John C.
Joynson-Hicks, William
Seddon, J. A.


Dennis, J. W.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.


Dewhurst, Lieut. Com. H.
King, Com. Douglas
Simm, Col. M. T.


Donald, T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Knight, Capt. E. A.
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Duncannon, Viscount
Knights, Capt. H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph


Edgar Clifford
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Stephenson, Col. H. K.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stevens, Marshall


Eyres-Monsell, Com.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stewart, Gershom


Falcon, Captain M.
Lloyd, George Butler
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Lyle Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Tickler, Thomas George


Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Lynn, R. J.
Townley, Maximillian G.



Lyon, L.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Foxcroft, Captain C.
M'Guffin, Samuel
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mackinder, Halford J.
Vickers, D.


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Walker. Col. William Hall



Macmaster, Donald
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macquisten, F. A.
Whitla, Sir William


Glyn, Major R.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wigan, Brig. -Gen. John Tyson


Gould, J. C.
Martin, A. E.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Grant, James Augustus
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Gray, Major E.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Green, A. (Derby)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Greer, Harry
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)


Greig, Col. James William
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Gretton, Col. John
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Lt-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Mount, William Arthur
Winterton, Major Earl


Gritten W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)
Murchison, C. K.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Nall, Major Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)
Neal, Arthur
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Nelson, R. F. W. R.



Hall, Admiral
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Hallas, E.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Younger, Sir George


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)



Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.


Hanson, Sir Charles
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Arnold, Sydney
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.




Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Breese, Major C. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Sitch, C. H.


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Casey, T. W.
Kiley, James Daniel
Swan, J. E. C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
M'Callum, Sir John M.
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Devlin, Joseph
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Tootill, Robert


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, A. E.
Wallace, J.


Glanville, Harold James
O'Connor, T. P.
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
O'Grady, James
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wignall, James


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Hartshorn, V.
Redmond, Captain William A.
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Hayday, A.
Rose, Frank H.



Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)



Holmes, J. S.




Question put, and agreed to.

INCREASE OF RENT BILL.

Lords Reasons considered for disagreeing to Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill and for insisting on certain of their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons.

Lords Amendment: At the end of Clause 4, to insert
(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.

Lords Message:

The Lords insist on their Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they do not admit that this Amendment makes any retrospective Amendment to the principal Act.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I beg to move,
That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement to the said Lords Amendment.
When this Amendment was formerly before this House, it was resisted from this bench on the view that the effect of it would be retrospective, and that it would, therefore, create very material difficulties in the working out of the Act of 1915. I think it was pointed out at that time that, so far as Scotland was concerned and the application of the Bill to it, the Amendment would make no difference at all, since the rateable value and the actual rent are much the same thing there. I think it was also
pointed out that in very many cases, I cannot say in the majority, in England, the Amendment would make no difference either, provided always it was not retrospective, although, no doubt, in some cases, the rateable value is higher in England than the actual rent. If I am not mistaken, it was admitted that, so far as the rateable value is higher than the actual rent, it was not an unfair proposition that the rateable rent should rule as the standard rent, inasmuch as rates have to be paid on it. There is no doubt, on further examination of this Amendment, that the admission ought to be made that the Lords are right in saying that this Amendment as drawn is not retrospective. Had that been so, I do not think it is doubtful that those in charge of the Bill would not have thought it necessary to oppose this Amendment, and now that it is quite clear that it is not retrospective as it is, I recommend the House to agree to the Amendment which the Lords have originally proposed and which they are prepared to press. The House, I think, is aware that this Bill has already passed its time and is urgently necessary if we are to have it at all. Therefore, I think it would be wise if, as far as possible, we make up our minds not to raise any contentious question or to press contentious questions further than we must, and as this is now clearly not a retrospective Amendment, and as it really makes but little difference, I venture to recommend the House not to disagree with it.

Lords Amendment: At the end of Clause 5, insert
(3) The principal Act, both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act, shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to Sub-section (1) of
Section one of that Act after the word 'until' there were inserted the words 'or in respect of any period prior to.'
(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling.

Commons Amendment: Leave out Subsection (4).

Lords Message:

The Lords do not agree to the Amendment made by the Commons for the following reason:
Because it is desirable to make it clear that this Bill and the principal Act apply to parts of dwelling-houses as they apply to undivided dwelling-houses.

Mr. CLYDE: When this Amendment was formerly before this House it was rejected upon the ground which still remains, that the Amendment purported in words to bring in the letting of a dwelling-house for purposes other than a dwelling. For instance, as framed, it would have the effect of applying the Bill to a cellar let out to somebody for storage purposes which had nothing to do with dwelling purposes. Quite clearly the Amendment could not be accepted with that on the face of it. Moreover, I confess I think that if the intention of the Amendment is to limit it to sub-letting for the purposes of a dwelling, that is already part of the 1915 Act, and therefore unnecessary. In order to avoid contention I shall propose, after the word "letting," to insert the words "as a dwelling." Whether it adds anything or not, the Amendment is in that form harmless.

Motion made, and Question,
That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to the Lords Amendment,

put, and agreed to.

Amendment made to the Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (4), against the word "letting" insert the words "as a dwelling."—[Mr. Clyde.]

Lords Amendment: After Clause 5 insert

NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation on Rent of s Let Furnished.)

B.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the County Court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more
than twenty-five per cent, in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined, the Court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit and twenty-five per cent., shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.

(2) For the purpose of this Section "normal profit" means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen.

Lords Message:

The Lords insist upon their Amendment for the following resaon:
Because it would be unjust to apply a different principle to the treatment of the letting of furnished and unfurnished dwelling-houses.

Mr. CLYDE: This Amendment insisted on as it is, raises a rather difficult question. As originally proposed and as still on the Paper, the Amendment was resisted from this bench upon the ground first of all that the method proposed of dealing with furnished houses was not practicable and would put on the County Courts, which was almost made a rent Court, a duty which it was impossible for it to perform, and, secondly, that the Clause was of such width as to cover many oases of the letting, say, of working-class dwellings and a room or two rooms furnished, and consequently to keep down the rent demandable for such room or zooms furnished, and that it was going much more into detail than the scope of the legislation had ever intended. There is no doubt about this, and I think the House felt this when the discussion took place over the Amendment, that there is a genuine grievance underneath this furnished let question, and I think the House therefore was of the view that if it could have seen its way to something practicable it would have been ready and willing to have put something of this kind into the Bill. The Lords have insisted on this Amendment. It is an Amendment which has an undoubted grievance behind it, but I am afraid it must still be admitted that the method taken to try and reach it is—perhaps I had better speak entirely for myself—exceedingly unlikely to have much practical effect. Therefore, in regard to the Amendment as it stands, I cannot recommend with any opinion of my own that it is likely to go far to touch the griev-
ance which really however at bottom inspires it. But this I suggest to the House as perhaps on the whole the wisest course. As it stands this Amendment would apply even to the let of a house for summer quarters for a month or two. It would apply to occasional lets of a month or two, and obviously it ought not so to apply. A house that is let furnished, Say, for summer quarters, for a couple of months, perhaps let twice in that way in the course of a year, is a furnished house that has to bring its return out of four months' instead of twelve months' occupation, and therefore to apply this Clause to short lets of that character, all the more if the Clause were one likely to be really effectual, would be to operate substantial injustice. I therefore suggest that while, rather than have more discussion or dissension about it, we should accept the Clause, at least it means that we accept the principle of the Clause, and if it can be made available by anybody through the County Courts it will be available to be made use of, subject to an Amendment of it which shall exclude from its operation lets of two months and less. That will certainly have the effect of avoiding the injustice and extreme inconvenience of throwing open to question all such bargains as this that are made for a month's or two months' holiday for a family. Therefore what I would recommend the House to do would be not to insist in disagreement but, on the contrary, to add after the word "let" the words, "for a period exceeding two months." It will then read thus: "Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act applies lets or has before the passing of this Act let for a period exceeding two months the house or any part thereof, etc." The effect of this will be to accept both the principle of the Clause and its letter but to exclude from it lets of two months and under.

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement to the Lords Amendment."—[Mr. Clyde.]

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "let," to insert the words, "for a period exceeding two months."—[Mr. Clyde.]

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should like to point out that it is a very extreme power,
and it appears to me that if this is agreed to nobody will let a furnished house readily beyond two months at a time. Nobody will be able to get any security of tenure. The let will be renewed from time to time, I can imagine. The question of the abuse of furniture by tenants of furnished houses is one that must not be lost sight of either. I would refer to another matter that I hope to see put right. I have in my hand a letter from a man who sold his house in January and took a new one in the full faith that he would get into the new house, and now he is bound to fulfil his contract to the person to whom he let his house, and he is on the street and cannot get into a new house. There was a bond called up, and he has paid it and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That question does not arise here.

Mr. CLYNES: I think the House feels that there are many practical difficulties in this matter which it is not easy to overcome. I recall that on the occasion when we considered the Lords Amendment many of us felt that to a very great extent the Lords were right in their view, but the difficulties were so great that we hesitated to go quite as far as had been suggested by the Lords. I feel, and I think that many of those for whom I am speaking also feel, now however that the Lords Amendment ought to be accepted without the further qualification suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I know, the damage that may be done in the incidental use of furniture or in the abuse of the furniture in the case of furnished apartments must be paid for in addition to any other payment arranged for for the ordinary let, and if that be so, there is nothing in that particular argument used by the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House; but there is a great deal in his point, which I think occurred at the same moment to many of us, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would incline every house-letter of a furnished house or furnished apartments to resort to the device of not letting the house at any one time for a longer period than two months. I think that the injustice which has become so common as to require us to deal with this question is greater than the practical difficulties that have to be overcome, and on the whole I would prefer that in the absence of any stronger reasons to the contrary the Amendment as suggested by the Lords be accepted.

Mr. ROWLANDS: I have had several communications in regard to this Amendment and with regard to the question of furnished apartments, and there is no doubt that there is a case that should be met if it can. I know the question arises about the lettings at seaside resorts and places of that kind, but my information is that in many cases in the towns there has been a very serious grievance. I had a case put to me the other day where a young professional woman had had her rent raised 4s. per week. It is no good meeting that statement by saying that that was because of the increase in the cost of food, because all these things had been taken into consideration previously, and the 4s. a week was put on the furnished apartments, and she has had to submit to it. Now, having put that case, which illustrates a grievance, I fully realise the great difficulty there is in dealing with it. Most of us who heard the Debate when the Amendment originally came before us, have tried, I suppose, to see whether we could think out a way in which this difficulty could be met. It is very good of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have made the suggestion he has with regard to two months' letting, but I am rather inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that it does not help us very much. I do not want to resist the Amendment, if it is the best way to get out of the difficulty. I want to see a Bill in the best form possible put on the Statute Book as speedily as may be, but I can also realise that, while it is necessary to put in an Amendment, it may land us in a difficulty. I can fully realise the case to be dealt with, where, for a large portion of the year, people with furnished apartments have to let at ridiculously low prices, and therefore they want an economic rent when people rush down for their holidays. I wish we could have got over the difficulty in some other way. I shall not resist the Amendment that is suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am afraid it does not help us very much, and it might create other difficulties that might cause much trouble to get over.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry to hear the Lord Advocate say that the acceptance of the Lords Amendment would not help us to overcome the difficulty with which it seeks to deal. I do not think there is any doubt that there has been just as much profiteering in the letting of furnished
lodgings as there has been in many other phases of our national life during the course of the War. And, so far as we are concerned, we should like very well to see some reference put in here that would make profiteering in the letting of furnished houses, or parts of furnished houses, impossible. The terms of the Lords Amendment under which those letting furnished houses get a 25 per cent, increase, is, I think, a fairly substantial sum towards meeting the risk that was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Springburn division of Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten). I think that if there is the difficulty the Lord Advocate has pointed out as to making this Amendment applicable so as to remove the profiteering, he should turn his attention to the amending of the Lords Amendment in such a way as would fulfil the object which their Lordships have in view. I am certain that the Amendment he has proposed to the Lords Amendment will not have the effect that he seems to have in his mind. I think it will have the effect that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Springburn. Instead of letting these furnished apartments for three, six and twelve months, they will let them for one month or two months, and in that way continue the profiteering. I have in my mind the case of a small house, the yearly rental of which was £17 10s. It was let furnished to another party at £8 a month on a quarterly let. Instead of letting that house quarterly, all that they will need to do is to reduce the time to two months. I think the Lord Advocate, if he has in mind the protection of those who make their living by providing summer quarters for people on holiday, would be well advised to put in some such words as would limit the effect of his Amendment to cover this purpose, and this purpose alone. I do not think that I could give him the exact words at the moment, but some such words as "except for summer holiday purposes" might meet the point. I do not think it would accomplish the object we have in view by saying "seaside resort," as people go to other parts of the country as well as to seaside resorts. But I would make an appeal to the Lord Advocate to see whether it is not possible to word his Amendment in such a way as would cover these cases and these cases alone, and accept the remainder of their Lordships Amendment so as to stop what profiteering can be stopped within its terms.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Is the Amendment of the Government intended to include the ordinary furnished lodgings arrangements whereby people can get rid of a tenancy by a week or month's notice, as the case may be? Is it meant to apply to people who have lived, say, in furnished lodgings for two years on a weekly or monthly tenancy? Would not the words exclude those cases which are really intended to be included? It is only a drafting point.

Mr. CLYDE: This would not apply to furnished lodgings at all. None of this legislation applies to a case where service is rendered.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Is my right hon. and learned Friend quite sure of the wording? The original Bill was supposed to apply to furnished houses. Every flat in London has a certain amount of attendance in regard to stairs, or lights, or something of that sort.

Mr. CLYDE: Of course, I quite agree there might be a case in which it would be difficult to say whether the service was such, just as there might be a case in which it would be difficult to say that the furniture was such, as to bring a house within the limit of ordinary apartments on the one hand or a furnished house on the other. But, so far as this Clause is concerned, it applies to a furnished house let as such, and not to furnished apartments or lodgings let as such.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Parts of the dwelling house.

Mr. CLYDE: Again, that is only true if let as a dwelling house. It does not apply to the ordinary case of a lodger who has a bedroom and a sitting room, and gets full service otherwise. As I said before, I am really trying to obtain agreement here. If the general view is, as it seems to be, favourable to accepting the Amendment as it stands, notwithstanding the candid warning I have given that it might do some harm, though not much, I am not going to stand in the way of the House in a matter of this sort at all. I cannot promise that the effect will be anything that the framers will have anything to congratulate themselves upon, because I do not think it will touch the effective difficulty. This Amendment has nothing to do with security of tenure at all. It is true that, in regard to small houses, there is security given to the tenant while this state of things lasts. Here there is none. Consequently, it is obvious there are few
tenants who will care to face the proof in the County Court which this will impose upon them, in order to get a remedy, in order to alter the rent of a tenancy which will, inevitably, if that Clause be passed, be kept short in duration. The tenants will be able to apply the remedy which the Clause contains. I am very anxious for peace. I quite understand the general grievance behind, and although I cannot say that I think this will prove an effective remedy, since it seems to be the opinion of the House I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Amendment and allow the matter to stand so that the Motion will be that the House doth not disagree.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Clyde.]

Lord HUGH CECIL: It seems to me that we are witnessing a most amazing display of legislative incompetence. This Bill has now had two Amendment stages in this House and two Amendment stages in the other House. The Lords have amended the Bill, and it has come back here and we are considering whether or not to disagree. We are not to insist upon the Amendment now after all these stages have been gone through. The Government quite blandly get up, and, having had their opportunity of dealing with the Amendment on several occasions in the two Houses, they tell us, that though they do not think that this particular way of dealing with grievances is the best, that they have no other to suggest. That is hardly fair to this House. In the other House, too, we have the amazing spectacle of the Government lamenting the possibility of convincing their colleagues in this House of the legitimacy and desirability of several such Amendments. It seems desirable that the Government in the two Houses should work together and should really understand what they want. They should take the trouble of framing Amendments to carry out what are the objects of the Bill, and of remedying the grievances which they themselves recognise to be real grievances. It is not possible for the Government to disclaim responsibility. If they do not think a good plan has been suggested they ought to provide a proper plan. They have placed those of us here in this position: We cannot disagree with the Lords Amendment because that will
kill the Bill. If we agree with the Lords Amendment, then the outcome is these words with which we do not agree. There is a third alternative, and that is for the Government to produce an Amendment. The fourth alternative is to adjourn the Debate. I think the Government ought to take the trouble to work out their legislation properly to meet the grievances that they recognise.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sorry in many respects that the Lord Advocate suggests the withdrawal of this Amendment, because to some of us on these benches the point appears to be perfectly simple. We desire to protect, so far as possible, large numbers of the industrial classes who are compelled to take or let furnished houses for short periods. We wish to draw the distinction between the class of tenant with a furnished house and the occupier of furnished premises for a short time at the seaside for the purposes of a holiday. If the Amendment was altered on the lines suggested, namely, to make that perfectly clear that holiday premises were excluded, then we should get an Amendment that would protect the occupiers of small furnished houses for short periods, and a very large number of the industrial classes of the country. Might I respectfully press that upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Mr. CLYDE: All these alternatives, in eluding some of those put forward by the Noble Lord, have not only been considered, but considered very fully, and I am sorry that it has not been found possible to suggest to the House what we thought would be a really practical solution of this question, with the kind of exceptions required, and which hon. Members very naturally would like to see. I am afraid that it has not been possible. May I also say, in reference to the speech of the Noble Lord, that it is possibly neither just nor wise to attempt to throw on the heads of the Government the responsibility for interference the real source of which may be found not here but in another place.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am doubtful whether the Government have had a very clear view. An opinion was given the first day as to the working of this Act by, I think, the Lord Advocate himself. It was to the effect that this Act applied to furnished lodgings. That was true, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman
came in somewhat hurriedly, and the Bill, as I have said before, was not in charge of a lawyer at the beginning. He gave us that view definitely and that view was never withdrawn.

Mr. CLYDE: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in that.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not here the next day. The Minister of Education was in charge of the Bill at that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt on the third occasion did withdraw the interpretation. That is perfectly right. The fact of the matter is that the stages of this Bill were taken quickly, and we passed this legislation through the House without proper consideration, and without clearly understanding what the effect of the Bill would be. I very much doubt whether anybody knows exactly what the effect of this Amendment will be, so far as furnished lodgings or rooms are concerned. There was considerable force in what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University said. In a Bill involving legal questions it is very important that the legal points should be considered and legal advice given to the House at every stage.

Lords Amendment:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Definition of Standard Rent.)

D. At the end of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted:
Provided that in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease, the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent.

Lords Message: The Lords insist upon their Amendment for the following reason:
Because this Amendment is clearly in accordance with the intention of the principal Act and of this Bill.

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move,
That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement to the said Lords Amendment.
This Amendment, as I have explained, was put forward mainly, if not entirely, in the interests of certain veteran soldiers, garden cities, and so on. There have been proposals of the kind in connection with discharged soldiers who have already established a claim to a tenancy on the basis of what they call a progressive rent—that is to say, a rent which increases from time to time. We pointed out when the Amendment was under consideration
here, that no qualification of the kind had been made in 1915 when the principal Act was passed, and though we did not offer any very strenuous opposition to it we did think it was better not to complicate the amending Act by any qualification of this kind. However, the Lords have seen fit to insist upon the Amendment, and one has to make up his mind as to whether we shall lose the Bill by disagreeing again, whether on the one hand we can make an Amendment on this point, or whether on the other hand we should accept the Amendment. It seems quite clear that we cannot take the first course. As for the second, that has been very carefully considered, and I do not think we can do anything by way of Amendment, which would be satisfactory, in order to effect a limitation in the application of the Clause to any one kind of lease with the progressive rent, as compared with another kind of lease with a progressive rent. After all, the cases are not many. On the whole, therefore, the recommendation we make is that the House do not insist on disagreeing.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he proposes to take the Committee stage?

Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): On Wednesday.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill, as the House is aware, is the implement by which Parliament renews its authority from year to year for the maintenance and provision of the Army. Unless it were passed before a certain date the authority in virtue of which the Army is maintained would vanish, and the Army would become an undisciplined mob. Advantage is taken of the Bill to incorporate in the Army Act Amendments and alterations which experience may have proved to be either necessary or desirable. In the Bill now before the House there is a rather formidable array of Amendments which it is proposed to make in the Army Act. I think that those Amendments are
formidable rather in appearance than in substance. I do not think that there will be any very grave matters arising in connection with them. The memoranda which are printed in the Bill explain sufficiently the general purpose of the Amendments, and I do not think it necessary to enter upon them in any detail.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the numerous expansions of the Annual Army Act which would be effected by the Bill now before the House. I agree, further, that many of these changes are consequential, and are necessary as a result of the changed conditions of the Army incidental to the recent War. But there is one Clause in the Bill now before the House to which I am desired by my Friends on this side to take the strongest objection, that is, Clause 12. While we may not pursue the subject at any great length to-night on the Second Reading, it will be the duty of many of us to contest this Clause in detail during the Committee stage of the Bill. Clause 12, as I gather, is really lifted into this Bill from some part of the Defence of the Realm Act. It raises very vital and in some respects very sore questions of individual freedom. I have no sympathy whatever with those who have designedly, sometimes perhaps with determination, sought to undermine the moral of the Army or interfere with recruiting at a time when the country was in a very perilous condition. It is not our object to offer opposition to this Bill on the ground that there should be absolute liberty on the part of the individual to say and do just what he likes when the country is in danger. But there ought to be some equality as between an orator and the Press, as between, say, a poor man and a rich man, in what he says in public with regard to the Army. I would say that the ordinary law is quite stringent enough to deal with any real offender, without importing into this Bill the special provisions that were expressly agreed to by this House during the course of the War, and that came to be known to the House as the Defence of the Realm Act.
There have been instances during the War where the freedom of the individual has been seriously impaired by the application of these Acts, but I suggest that the application has not been equitable, and that there have been cases where men have escaped who clearly have violated
the laws, and cases on the other hand where men have committed a mere technical offence and been pursued by the police or by some official shorthand writer, where the speeches were written down, and these men have been brought into Court and been severely punished. Incidentally now that the War is ended one may say that we have not been quite as generous as we might have been in our treatment of these political prisoners, and it is known that this has excited a great deal of dissatisfaction in many quarters of the country. We could really have afforded to have treated many of these men more generously. Many of them have done and said what they did and said for the sake of conscience, and only as advocating the convictions which they had. Let me draw the attention of the House to one quite recent and outstanding instance of inequality. Clause 12 tells us, in effect, that any person who does any act or who attempts to do any act calculated to cause disaffection among any of His Majesty's military forces shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. I have read the material words of the Clause. We have known cases of men of quite honest convictions, men who are real patriots and not traitors at all, who have been brought into Court and imprisoned for very simple technical offences on the ground that they have said or done something which has caused disaffection in the Army.
On the other hand, there have been occasions repeatedly during the course of the War, and since the close of the War, when highly-placed and powerful personages in the country who dominate certain sections of the Press, and who can begin what I think is termed a Press stunt, have undoubtedly by their attitude towards the Government and by their conduct towards the Army created disaffection of the deepest and most severe kind. I can recall a quite recent instance when soldiers, being dissatisfied with the conditions of demobilisation, manifested their dissatisfaction even to the extent of refusing to obey orders. They were encouraged by the Press. Leading articles with bold head-lines appeared day after day, and these, which tended to inflame excitement and disaffection in the Army, were permitted without any attempt on the part of the Government to intervene. If this form of wholesale manufacture of dis-
satisfaction can be indulged in as a Press stunt, whatever be the motive, whether it be a political motive or not, and those who are guilty of it can go scot-free, gaining perhaps a wider circulation of their newspapers, we suggest that the law ought not to be so framed as to cause individual workmen who commit technical offences to be brought into Court and punished. I offer these observations to indicate that this and other parts of the Bill are to us most objectionable, and we suggest that offences which imperil the strength of the country or of the Army, so far as they can be committed, can be dealt with by the ordinary law

Major HAYWARD: The Debates on the Army (Annual) Bill provide the only opportunity which Parliament has of revising questions of discipline and punishment in the Army. The observations that I have to make refer more particularly to omissions from the Bill than to its contents. The whole system of Army discipline and punishment in the Army wants revising in many respects having regard to all our experiences during the War and our experiences with the New Army. I put down a question the other day asking the Secretary of State if he would include in the terms of reference of the Committee which is now established to deal with courts-martial the whole question of discipline and punishment in the Army. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to do so, and the House without the expert knowledge which the Committee could give us must grope its way through this matter and amend the Act as best it can. After all this Committee has been established to deal only with the question of courts-martial, and I suggest that that is a matter which least wants attention. I believe it is the universal experience of every Member who has had any experience of courts-martial that, taking them all in all, their procedure is absolutely fair, that they are conducted fairly, and that the one desire of almost every officer who is ever appointed a member of a court-martial is to see if he can possibly find some loophole for letting the man off. Therefore, from that point of view, there are far more questions wanting investigation than this question of courts-martial. I hope, probably in the Bill, that we shall have Amendments providing that at least one member of every court-martial, probably the president, shall be someone having legal knowledge
and experience. In the days of the Old Army, when every officer had a proper training in military law—he was sent to several courts-martial for training—there was not the same fear or risk that Courts would be held by officers without any knowledge or experience in the administration 3either of military law or any other law.
The other night there was raised by an hon. Member the question of a prisoner having the assistance of somebody with legal knowledge and experience in his defence. That is another weakness of the system. It is quite true that the prisoner had the advantage of the soldiers' friend or officers' friend, but that is hardly sufficient w3hen charges of great gravity are being dealt with. I want the Government to consider whether they cannot do something to deal with the powers of a commanding officer with respect to punishment. I think I am right in saying that a commanding officer can give the whole of any punishment which it is within his power to give for my office. I believe that with one or two small exceptions it is competent for him to give the greatest punishment for the smallest and most trivial offence. The result is that in the administration of justice generally throughout the Army you find a good deal of inequality. You find some commanding officers giving very severe sentences for the same offences for which other commanding officers give lighter sentences. There is one further point in this connection. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider the whole question of field punishment No. 1, not so much with reference to the powers of courts-martial as with reference to the powers of commanding officers. That is all I am going to say at the moment, but in view, not of what I have heard, but of what I have seen and know of my own knowledge, I sincerely hope that the Government will take this question into consideration and will take this question into consideration and will put down such Amendments in Committee as will make it unnecessary for us to go further into the matter. I do submit that for the most serious consideration of the Government.

Mr. THOMAS: I hope the Government will recognise that in the very strong stand our party propose to take in this matter we fully admit that discipline is necessary, and we are not guided or actuated by any desire or intention to interfere with what may be recognised as the basic principle of any army—the
essential necessity of maintaining discipline. But, on the other hand, we are compelled to recognise, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will do so also, that you are dealing with an Army to-day and with an Army of the future which is entirely different, both in its nature, traditions and views of soldiering from any Army in the past. I venture to assert that Clause 12 of this Bill will be violated every hour of the day. There is hardly a man in the Army at the present moment but unconsciously violates this particular Clause. In my own union, we have 123,000 members in His Majesty's Forces. That is our contribution. No matter what constituencies Members may claim to represent, the connection of these people with their trade union is such that they look upon it as their duty to consult their society on their grievances, and one result is probably during the last three years my own post bag has averaged from two to three hundred letters daily from soldiers. What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. These men in their ordinary civil employment, if they are suffering from grievances have grown up under forms and customs which they themselves feel provide an opportunity of redress, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be highly dangerous if advantage is going to be taken of this Clause to punish these men for utilising what years of experience have proved to them to be the only means of securing the redress of their grievances.
Not very long ago I visited the troops at the front. I do not want to say too much, but I think I am entitled to state that every commanding officer I spoke to recognised that to have attempted to give effect to the powers conferred in this Clause would have broken up your Army absolutely. I put it no stronger than that, but I challenge contradiction. I speak with knowledge of thousands of men, and I am fully prepared to admit that officers have acted in a very tactful way. I disagree with the suggestion that they have paid no regard to the feelings of the men. I believe they have displayed within the limits of their powers prudence, and have not desired to take advantage of the powers conferred upon them by this Clause. I suggest, however, it is highly dangerous to give powers to them which may easily not strengthen the discipline of the Army, but utterly destroy it. With a conscript army, with the men feeling as they feel
to-day that the Act which we have just passed is a violation of promises made to them, if in addition to that they are to be prevented from corresponding with, or talking to, or asking advice and assistance from people at home, I submit that you cannot possibly maintain discipline under such conditions, and it is for these reasons that we on these benches take strong exception to this particular Clause, and we shall offer very strenuous opposition to it on the Committee stage; indeed, I hope my right hon. Friend may be able to meet us even on the Second Beading rather than allow a Division to take place.
With regard to field punishment No. 1 I am not concerned so much with the procedure attached to this punishment as with the punishment itself. Every soldier I have spoken to, everyone who knows anything about the punishment, says, without reserve, that is is degrading, demoralising, and obsolete, and cannot be justified in this twentieth century. In spite of all our talk of compulsion the overwhelming mass of our present Army are men who volunteered their services, or who willingly went in defence of high principles. In this question one must recognise that there is no defence or excuse for what is known as field punishment No. 1. It is because I believe it is necessary to be tactful in these matters, because I believe it to he necessary to have regard to the spirit of the times, and because I believe you will be compelled to recognise the difference between the soldier of to-day and the soldier of the past, that I hope my right hon. Friend will give some consideration to the points I have raised.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is not a very agreeable task in times like these to criticise any measure brought forward by the Government in the interests of what they consider to be the better control of the Army. But as we are now within sight of peace, and as we shall soon return, I hope, to normal conditions I would like to draw the attention of the House to two points in this Bill which seem to me to continue certain military rule in this country which we gladly put up with in time of war, but which when peace comes ought to be abolished, and the civil authorities put back into its former controlling position. This may be a small point but it is one which runs through the whole of the Bill. Under Section 7 the Army Council and military authorities are definitely substituted for the civil power. Before the
War, when it was necessary to take a census of carriages or animals, the military authorities were not allowed to go into an Englishman's house or stable—to force their way in and make an enumeration of the property, but there was a civil procedure which had to be observed. A magistrate had to be approached, and had to give his warrant, and then a constable went with the military officer to see that proper information was given. We are only anxious that proper facilities should be given to the military authorities for finding out what carriages and horses are available in an emergency. But I am not prepared to give the Army Council or their officers power to come into my house or stable without even "by your leave," and to force their way in and do anything they like. I am perfectly willing if it is necessary, and if a magistrate gives an order and a constable comes along—the civil power—to admit that right to him, but I am not prepared to give to the Army Council—a collection of generals—the power to order anybody to go into my house, or anybody else's house, and to take an inventory of my goods or their goods. For that is exactly what it says in Sub-section (4) of Clause 7:
The authority for—
that is for going into the premises and doing all these things—
shall be the Army Council or any authority or persons to whom the Army Council may delegate their powers under this Section.
This means that the Army Council may authorise a general to send down any officer or private whom he may wish to come, and take an inventory of my carriages or horses. I feel sure the House would not approve of that, but would wish for a continuation of the old system, namely, when it was done by the civil power, working through and with the military authority. I associate myself, though it is an ungrateful thing to do in these days, with what has fallen from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to Clause 12. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that we shall not always be at war, and when we get back to peace I want, so far as military rule is concerned, that we should go back to the year of grace 1914. In 1914 the utmost penalty that could be imposed upn anyone who induced a soldier in His Majesty's Forces to desert was six months in prison. That may have been right or it may have been wrong, but it
was considered sufficient in 1914. What are we asked to pass in this Second Reading, here in 1919? That anyone who makes any statement intended or likely to prejudice recruiting, or to contravene the King's Regulations, or in any way to interfere with any of His Majesty's Forces, may be imprisoned for a term of two years, or may be fined £100 or imprisoned for six months, or both.

Mr. THOMAS: For expressing his views on the Conscription Act.

Colonel ASHLEY: I gladly admit that these offences will be tried, and the punishment will be inflicted by a civil magistrate, yet I would ask the House to hear me for just two minutes longer to consider what offences we shall have, if we pass the Second Reading of this Bill without some promise from the Government, which will allow civil magistrates to impose two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100, or six months' imprisonment, or both. There is an offence of making a statement intended or likely to prejudice the recruiting of people for His Majesty's Forces. Hon Members in this House have made statements to their constituents. Surely it would prejudice recruiting if you said that the pay of the Army was not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made the statement that the unemployed were paid better than His Majesty's Forces. That is obviously an inducement to people to be unemployed, and not to join the forces. Therefore, under this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will be liable, and probably quite rightly liable, to two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100. Then, again, under this Bill, supposing such a thing happened as was the case when we sent troops first to India early in the War. Then we drew attention outside the House, on the public platform and in the Press, to the very bad conditions of travelling for the Territorials in India, when scores of men died through the neglect of the Indian Government. We should be liable to two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100. Take the contravention of the King's Regulations. Have hon. Members ever studied the King's Regulations? I had the greatest difficulty in the Library in unearthing a volume of them. There are 574 pages of close print, and if anybody induces any members of His Majesty's Forces to break any one of those 574 pages be is liable to two years' imprisonment and a fine of
£100. If a member of His Majesty's Forces is on leave and he is ill, and you tell him to stay another twenty-four hours and not to go back, and if you do not get a doctor's certificate, then you have induced him to break his furlough, which is contravening the King's Regulations, and you become liable. Anyone who obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with any one of His Majesty's Forces in the execution of his duty would be liable to these heavy penalties. On that, any farmer who in any way tries to prevent troops on manœuvre going over his growing crops, will be liable to this two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100. If any person, wrongly no doubt, prevented any of His Majesty's Forces coming to a house where they were billeted, he would be liable to this heavy penalty. I need not weary the House, but I could multiply instances by the thousand. I think these penalties are savage and excessive. There is no justification for them. It may be, and it is, that the law does want strengthening in some way to check people who are out to destroy the moral and discipline of His Majesty's Forces. The right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench say, "Hear, hear." I quite agree with them. But let them define exactly what they want to get at, and put into the Bill words about which there can be no doubt. In the case of men who wish to cause dissatisfaction and mutiny, and to get people to desert from the Army, let them be punished heavily, but do not leave these grave terms, which may be badly and unjustly used, and which will cause a great deal of unrest among members of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. O'GRADY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill to-night will listen to the appeals which have been made. As a matter of fact, I suppose there are more Amendments in this Bill in this Session of Parliament than has ever been the case before. I have not had time to cast my eyes over a number of the Amendments, but they are very numerous and very drastic. I was hoping that one Amendment by the Government would be to cut out of the old Army Act that barbarous system of field punishment. There is no Army, at least among the civilised nations of the world, which has so terrible a punishment as field punishment No. 1. It might be imposed by a commanding officer in circumstances which would not be permitted by any
other army. So far as the other armies, at least on the Continent of Europe, are concerned, very definite arrangements have to be made before that penalty can be imposed. I just add my appeal that this matter may be amended in the existing Bill. Clause 7 seems to be complimentary to the Act we have already passed as an usurpation of the civil power in favour of the military power. In this country, at any rate, that will not be tolerated for very long. During four years of war we have put up with many restrictions on our liberty, and on the prerogative of the civil power in favour of the military. I suggest that now we are in sight of peace that cannot be maintained much longer. The people are becoming restless under the existing state of things, and to perpetuate these restrictions in a Bill of this character would simply mean emphasising the existing irritation that already exists. I come to Clause 12. At least I hope we are in sight of peace. It is just possible that peace may be signed within the next month. What does this Bill seek to undertake? I hope that when peace is signed and ratified we shall do away with Dora,—the Defence of the Realm Act. For the first time in the history of Bills of this character, which come as they do annually, to perpetuate the existence of the Army, and to provide the means for its existence, we have now incorporated within this Bill the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act.

Mr. THOMAS: In one Clause.

Mr. O'GRADY: In one Clause, as my right hon. Friend suggests. To-day, I think, we set up a Committee to inquire into courts-martial. The Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who has been very prominent in this matter, can now be subjected to two years' imprisonment for any comment he may make in his paper after this Bill is carried, protesting against the work of courts-martial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and any Member who receives a grievance from one of his constituents who is a member of the Army, if he were to go on a public platform and make the simple statement that such a grievance existed would be subject to two years' imprisonment. This does not apply merely to military men. The danger of the provision in Clause 12 is that it applies to every civilian, and that no Member of this House dare go outside it—of course he
has the privilege inside of stating the case—and address his constituents and make a statement in regard to certain grievances in the Army without being subject to two years' imprisonment or a fine of £100. That is an intolerable thing. There is nothing in the Clause which improves the discipline of the Army. This Clause merely hits civilians who bring grievances of the Army before this House and the public. If I thought it would mean better discipline in the Army I would raise no objection. I am an old soldier. Years ago I was in the Royal Garrison Artillery. I was ten years in the Volunteer Force, and lately I have been on special duty for the Army itself, so that I know that this Clause, if enacted, will not increase discipline in the Army. The supposition of the Clause is that greater discipline is needed. I do not hold that opinion. In so far as the Clause prevents Members of this House going outside the House and stating certain grievances and trying to rectify them, it is very dangerous. I hope we shall stick to the old Clauses of the Army (Annual) Bill and that my right hon. Friend will withdraw this Clause

Mr. C. WHITE: If this Bill were an Act to-night I could qualify immediately for two years' hard labour and a fine of £100, which I should have great difficulty in finding, for I had only this morning a letter of the gravest character from a soldier which resulted in the loss of a great many lives. I am not going to read it or make it public—it is as grave as that. It is known to the members of the Government. If I were to say that outside this House, that would be something prejudicial to recruiting. The whole matter was brought about by the unsatisfactory methods of demobilisation. I do not know whether it is allowed by the Rules of the House, but may I refer for the moment to the very lax methods of demobilisation which exist to-day and which are responsible for a good deal of the punishment that is now being inflicted in the Army. I suppose that in the future any soldier doing anything in that respect would, under Clause 12, be liable to punishment. If I comment on it, certainly I should be liable to punishment also. The Government, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, I submit—have caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Army and interference with employment at home by adopting what they call the clean-cut with regard to releasing men on occupational grounds.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not discuss the administrative side of the question to-day, but deal merely with the legal side.

Mr. WHITE: I anticipated that ruling and therefore got in as much as I could before you interfered, Sir. I will not pursue that subject further. I should like to say one or two words with regard to the abolition of held punishment No. 1. I will give one instance, without mentioning names or dates. It is the case of a young man of the highest character, whom I knew before he went from my county of Derbyshire. He is nineteen years of age. He had the misfortune to shoot a comrade through the foot owing to an accident to his rifle. He was sentenced to twenty-eight days' field punishment No. 1. I wrote to his commanding officer as his mother, who was broken-hearted, came to see me and described the punishment he was undergoing. Eventually he was reprieved to the extent that he was sentenced to nine months' detention instead of the twenty-eight days' field punishment No. 1. I contend that that was an unjustifiable sentence. [An HON MEMBER: "Was that a sentence by court-martial?"] I cannot tell you how it was done; all I know was that he was sentenced to it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you sure it was nine months' detention?"] It was some months, at any rate. I can produce the correspondence. I am speaking, perhaps, in the presence of Service men who pretend very often to know all there is to be known of the Army, but who do not know a great deal that is known among the rank and file. This lad was sentenced to twenty-eight days' field punishment No. 1, and that was commuted, perhaps because of some influence I was able to bring to bear. It does not matter for what period it was commuted; the fact remains that he was sentenced to twenty-eight days' field punishment No. 1. That was an inhuman sentence. With an Army constituted as ours is to-day, no punishment like that ought to be inflicted. I know that Service men, perhaps some in this House, would like to continue these old, arbitrary, savage, inhuman sentences, but at this time they are out of date. I have had as much to do with recruiting for the Army as most men, but I am here to protest against that kind of thing and say that now is the time to abolish this punishment.

Mr. WIGNALL: In regard to Clause 12, I would appeal to the Government to with-
draw it. If it was ever needed at all, this is the worst time in which it could be introduced in connection with the Army. I have had some experience, because my own boys are in the Army—one is an officer and the other is a non-commissioned officer—my father was a soldier who died in the Crimea, so that there is something of the soldier blood in me. From the experience I have gained I gather that the best soldier is generally found to be the best grouser, and that the best grouser in the Army is generally found to be the best soldier. Stop a soldier grousing and you will very soon stop him fighting. It is a part of the very privilege that is in him in his position that a man grouses in the morning, all day, and last thing at night. It is a part of his very training, and in my own experience as a trade union official I have known young fellows who have gone into the Army during these last four years or so and they have been very nice, quiet, young chaps and they have been demobilised, but they can grouse now all right. You get a few of them in your branch meeting and hear them talk. It is part of their very privilege, and you might as well try to stop the sea coming over the shore as to stop the soldier grumbling and grousing. Even when he is praising the Army he is grousing about it all the time, and you are introducing a very dangerous element. At this very time make a man feel that he is under restrictions, make him feel that he is to be penalised for something he has been accustomed to for years, and at once you create in him a spirit that will make him break every Clause in this-Bill before he will know what he has done at all. I have been a justice of the peace during the War period and it is under the Clause of the £100 or six months or both. It is as familiar to me as anything I know, for we have it before us in dealing with bakers selling bread that is less than twelve hours old and violations of various Acts which have been passed and every-time you look at it it is the six months or £100 or both. And then, of course, we-have had to deal with it in various ways as applied to various other sections of life. The soldier has been fighting for us. He has helped to get us the liberty that we are enjoying to-day. We have just come out of the world's greatest tragedy where we have been fighting for liberty, and a Clause in this Bill says to these very men, "We are going to further restrict your liberty and going to put
penalties upon you which were never known before." Do not embitter the minds of the men. Do not give them the feeling that they are going to be treated more harshly in the future than even they have been treated in the past. I have a bundle of the letters which we are all receiving, and if they were revealed every one of the men who have written them is liable to the penalties contained in this Clause. You will never stop them complaining. You will never prevent them sending their complaints by letter, and you will never stop them uttering their complaints. I make an earnest appeal as one who comes from among the ranks, one who knows something of the evil effect of restrictions of this kind being imposed upon our men. Do not let them feel that now that the War has been fought and won they are to be treated worse than they were before, so far as liberty of expression of opinion is concerned, and to be prevented from expressing themselves in their own way.

Major COURTHOPE: The remarks which have been made about field punishment No. 1 have brought me to my feet, because I want to ask those who feel inclined, as many must at first sight, to support the attitude of those who have raised the question to think twice about it, to hear what I am going to say, and to think whether the existence of a punishment of almost inhuman severity, as I admit it is, may not be for the benefit of the soldiers themselves. During war everyone admits1 that discipline of a very rigid character has to be maintained in and near the firing line and many offences which at home and in peace time might be matters, I do not say of trivial importance, but at all events not matters deserving the most severe punishment, have to be treated as serious offences, and unless there is punishment of great severity which cannot only be imposed but can be carried out at the front I know from my personal experience that a great many more death penalties would have to be imposed. I am not going to mention names or regiments, but I call to my mind one case when I had the misfortune to sit as president of a field general court-martial just behind the front line in Flanders and I had to try twelve men in one noted regiment, men of undoubted gallantry, for an offence which, in spite of the fact that there were extenuating circumstances, was an offence of the most severe character
as it took place in the presence of the enemy, and but for the existence of a penalty, which could be imposed and carried out at the front, of the most severe character there would have been no course open to the court-martial but to condemn these men to death.

Mr. THOMAS: Do you mean by that that it would not be within the competence of the military authorities to substitute some other punishment?

Major COURTHOPE: The punishment for this particular offence was death or such lesser penalty—you know the formula—and the crime which they committed was, when committed in the presence of the enemy, as this was, so serious that it required the most drastic punishment. No light penalty would have been possible at all. But I am quite convinced in my own mind that, but for the existence of a penalty of almost inhuman severity, as field punishment No. 1 can be, all those twelve men would not only have been condemned to death, but would have been shot. I think it would have been necessary for the discipline of the Army. I only mention that as an instance. There were innumerable cases of that kind. Drunkenness in action in the presence of the enemy is a very serious offence indeed, and one that has to be visited with severe penalties. It must be visited with a penalty which can be carried out on the spot. You cannot send a man like that back for imprisonment or anything of that kind. It has got to be dealt with where you are, and I firmly believe there are many men who would, in the War which is just over, have suffered the death penalty but for the existence of this severe field punishment No. 1. I only ask hon. Members who have personal knowledge of military conditions to consider this before they press the Government to withdraw this penalty because on the face of it it appears to be almost inhumanely severe.

Mr. HOGGE: The remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have had much greater weight if this field punishment which he has been seeking to examine in certain circumstances were applicable both to officers and men. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, this arrangement is not applicable to officers. When we discuss the question of punishment that fits the crime, I am not going to pretend for a moment to compete in knowledge of the circumstances with hon. Members who are obviously very much better acquainted
with them; but hon. Members who have intimate knowledge of Army conditions must also remember the public opinion which surrounds the class from whom the men are recruited for the army. That must never be lost sight of, and I am clearly of opinion, having had brought to my knowledge many instances of the application of field punishment, that some considerable revision ought to be made in regard to this kind of punishment. I do not think that in any kind of punishment that is imposed upon men, that that kind of indignity ought to be heaped upon them. We have to remember that the bulk of the men who serve in the present Army volunteered their services. I think more than two-thirds are volunteers. None of us would like to guarantee our action in certain circumstances. Probably every one of us knows of cases in which men have had to undergo field punishment, and who, if the real facts were known, would have been excused by every reasonable man. Therefore, while not saying anything more on that topic, I hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) will give his earnest consideration to the plea which has been made that this barbarous method of punishment ought to be abandoned, or if not abandoned very considerably revised.
10.0 P.M.
This is a Bill on which there have been many long discussions in this House. Those of us who have served in previous Parliaments know that on this Bill the House can be kept up all night and into the early hours of next morning. Tonight we have had the Bill brought on early in the evening. Compared with previous Army (Annual) Bills, it is in many respects an entirely new Bill. I do not know what the Government's intentions are in regard to it—I do not think they have ever found the opposition unreasonable in regard to question of time—but I am certain that while the Second Beading may be obtained to-night we must have ample time to consider the fourteen or fifteen new Clauses which appear in the Bill for the first time. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I want to join in the protest against incorporating in this Bill for the first time regulations which were devised for the purposes of the War and for the War only. We have to be very careful and to examine all the Bills presented for that reason. I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend, before I form my own judgment, why the
Government consider it necessary, after the experience of the War, to incorporate as an integral part of the Army (Annual) Bill these Regulations in regard to incitement against recruiting. While the War was going on there may have been, and in some cases there were, distinct instances in which it was right that some curb should be put upon the language of some people who were talking against the raising of troops. Those circumstances have gone by. It is always possible for any Government to bring in legislation for special purposes, and if the same circumstances arise again it would be easy for the Government to meet those circumstances with the same special legislation that they have introduced during the War. I should like to warn my right hon. Friend that if the Government seeks to make that a permanent part of the machinery of the Army (Annual) Bill, simply as a result of the experience of the War, which is a special experience, they ought to give substantial reasons why it is necessary. I do not think it will be necessary, if the ratification of peace comes as we all hope, and if the desires of the Government are realised. There will be less necessity then than ever, and that makes one wonder why the Government is introducing it into the Bill now. I should be glad to know what special reasons have induced the Government in Clause 12 to seek these extraordinary powers just at the moment when we are coming out of the War. I dare say my right hon. Friend will be able to give us those reasons, but if not he must expect more opposition to the Bill in its new form than would otherwise be given.

Captain A. SMITH: I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to remember what kind of people we have had in our Army during the last three or four years. The men who have comprised our Army during the War have been men who have been brought direct from their employment. They have not had the training and discipline which our Regular soldiers have had before the War and we cannot reasonably expect to retain that rigid form of discipline amongst men who have enjoyed freedom of their industrial and civic life and the freedom of other phases of life directly before they joined the Army. They joined purposely at the time of war and to carry on war instantly after joining the Army. Sufficient account has not been paid to that in several of the points mentioned in this Bill. I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman who moved
the Second Reading did not do that. A great deal has been said in regard to field punishment No. 1. Field punishment No. 1 has never been administered uniformly throughout the Army. A great deal has depended on the commanding officer of the battalion and a great deal has depended on the brigadiers, as to how this field punishment has been carried out. The question was raised as to whether this refers to officers. I can only say at once we know it does not. Many hon. and gallant members of this House have seen a good deal of service in this War, and they know as well as anyone how officers have contravened the Army Regulations and how they have encouraged men to do it time after time during this War, and they have escaped; but when the men have been caught they have been severely punished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not speaking without full knowledge of what I am saying, and I should not have risen to say this had I not known the seriousness of what I am saying. What I say is within my own knowledge and experience. With regard to field punishment, taking into consideration the class of men of which the Army is composed, and has been since the War, and is likely to be in the future, what I say is that if discipline cannot be maintained in the Army without resorting to this barbarous form of punishment, there is something wrong elsewhere. I would ask some senior officer who has had charge of divisions and brigades to confirm me when I say that the best battalion commanders have had the least amount of field punishment—either No. 1 or No. 2—and I think he would bear me out in that respect.
With regards to courts-martial I agree that it is the fairest form of trial the soldier has? It may have its defects, and possibly it can be improved, but what I wish to draw attention to is that the soldier has to make his statement in writing, and that has always raised a doubt in the soldier's mind as to whether he is not really going to commit himself before appearing, and the result is that many of them, although they may have a good case, fight shy, and if some other form of procedure could be introduced it might give the soldier encouragement to make out his case more fully, and I think many more men would escape punishment who do not escape now because their defence is not properly prepared. With regard to some of the minor punish-
ments which have been referred to, all I wish to say is that there are commanding officers and commanding officers, and, uniformity of punishment for these offences is lacking. Some commanding, officers have no sense of proportion, and I do really think that attention ought to be drawn to the limitations under which commanding officers can inflict punishment. I know these punishments are held up sometimes, but in other cases the commanding officer is found to back up the battalion commander in a great number of cases, and I am afraid there is something radically wrong. Men have been constantly severely punished for certain offences committed in certain battalions, whilst in other battalions the men go scot-free for the same offences. That causes a great deal of discontent which may be avoided by proper supervision, and I suggest that is a matter which ought to receive attention. We have also to consider the class of man who forms our Army.
The Clause which has been complained of is so worded in many of its parts that the least offence can be construed into a very serious one, and that is a matter which this House may very well ponder over. We have been discussing in this. House the Military Service Act and it has passed. We have now passed through a period of four and a half years of war. There are on many of our fronts men who have been away from their homes three and four years, and any amount of men who have been over two years from home. We have seen instances of men who have been coming home when they have been diverted and sent to some other front. We have also our womenfolk, who have not been much taken notice of and who have acted bravely all through the War. Personally, I cannot find language in which to fully appreciate what our womenfolk have stood through the whole period of the War. Naturally they are anxious to see their menfolk back home, for they have never been used to such a long separation, and never have our soldiers been away for such long periods of time before, and then to be suddenly taken away to take part in the War.
Naturally, when they find an Armistice has been signed, although the War is not over, they particularly desire to come home to see their own people. Now, can it be expected that any human man brought up as these men have been can sit down without grumbling? It is not
humanly possible, and after the passage of the Military Service Bill, and if this Army (Annual) Bill passes, these men are placed in a position that if they commit one or two of these minor offences they can be called up and severely punished. I think many of these punishments are too harshly drawn, and if you are going to get discipline when men are suffering as they have done—and they have stood it manfully and splendidly—you must take into consideration not only the faults of these men on the field of battle, but also think of the people they have left at home all this time, and so on.
I know that one of the greatest blunders committed in this War was in regard to demobilisation. Thousands of men are in the Army who in the ordinary course would have been at home, and people who got out through that blunder and who ought to be in the Army are now living at home. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for taking that line, but still it has left many men smarting and they must find a vent for their feelings and let people know how they stand. I know of a case of a man with four sons in the Army, one of whom is in hospital. All he wanted was the young son sent home and a son not fit for general service and who has never done a day's general service. The reply I received to an application in that case was that it is not met by the Army Order, nor is it sufficiently strong to let that boy go on compassionate grounds. These things hurt at home and the brothers who are serving, and they spread, and that is why there is discontent in the Army with the War Office. If such cases were treated as compassionate cases it would improve feeling in the Army and at home, and with better pay provided there would be less grumbling and you would have a more contented lot of men. Everybody agrees that you cannot have an Army unless you have discipline, and you cannot expect the War Office or any other body of men to carry on a great war without making mistakes. But when those mistakes are pointed out they really ought to see that they are remedied in a way which will appeal to the feelings and the consciences not only of the soldiers but of the women at home. You can never get that by putting in a Clause like Clause 12, which provides that however hard their case they are debarred from giving it any publicity in order to obtain redress. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has always been willing to meet such cases in
a fair spirit. I hope he will take this discussion as a warning that this Bill cannot go through as easily as perhaps is desired. Let him give to the men more confidence that they are going to be treated fairly, and also the people at home. You will not have that if you insist on Clause 12 for those men abroad, although it may apply to a certain section of men at home. My earnest desire is that the Government will consider this question seriously and try to meet us as fairly and as squarely as they can.

Mr. T. SHAW: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not only withdraw Clause 12, but will insert in the Bill a Clause prohibiting field punishment No. 1. I am, I hope, a law-abiding citizen, but if this Bill becomes an Act I shall be in great danger of incurring the punishment laid down, for I shall most certainly in my own Constituency, if I am not satisfied with Army Regulations and Army conduct, criticise those Regulations and that conduct, though the Act may provide a punishment of two years' imprisonment. Every politician who goes before a bench of magistrates of an opposite political complexion from his own is in danger, if this Clause remains in the Bill. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Oh, oh!"] You will pardon me; I know of what I speak. Personal experience is a very good teacher in these matters, and I say that a Clause which says that anyone who spreads a report likely to prejudice recruiting is liable to punishment, is a Clause which endangers the liberty of every active public man in this country. I understood that we had gone to war to smash militarism and to safeguard liberty. Is this the way we are going to safeguard liberty? I submit that this is the very way to rivet on us the shackles that were on the German people in 1914. Certainly I feel very keenly that this is the gravest mistake that any Government could make, particularly a Government which is already accused of having broken its pledges on Conscription, and of not being sound on the doctrine it laid down of the breakdown of militarism throughout Europe. With regard to field punishment No. 1, I have not been a soldier, but for thirteen months for five counties of this country I was primarily responsible for providing the men for the Army and the Navy, and during that time I made it my duty to see and speak with as many private soldiers as I could, and I have to say this, that I
have met hundreds of men disgusted to the core with the punishment, but I have never met a decent man yet on whom the punishment had had any good effect, either if he were the criminal so-called or the observer. Any self-respecting man tied to a wheel is a blot on the civilisation of this country. If we were Red Indians in a state of savagery one could understand that punishment. If it were true that this punishment, and this punishment alone, could absolve from death, there are self-respecting men who would prefer death. I feel myself that if I were subjected to this punishment, I should either prefer death or the death of the man who inflicted the punishment. Having that feeling, I protest against a punishment which is not in consonance with our civilisation, which is degrading to the man, which degrades the people who witness it, and which, according to the statements made to me, does no good, does not improve the criminal, and deteriorates his comrades as well. For those reasons, I personally hope that field punishment No. 1 will be abolished, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take out Clause 12 and give us a chance of being free men, free to speak our opinions even with regard to Army management and Army methods, and I can assure him that some of us are likely to be free to speak our opinions even if Clause 12 is kept in the Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: I cannot refrain from adding a word to what has been said by Members on this side in regard to Clause 12 of the Bill. I speak with some sense of responsibility as having been an old member of the Army Council, but I do feel that the present powers claimed in this Clause, when we are approaching a time of peace, go beyond what ought to be necessary for the Government to ask the House to confer. It says that any person who
makes statements intended or likely to pre-judice the recruiting of persons to serve in any of His Majesty's military forces.
That is done hundreds of times a day in every railway train in this country when soldiers are coming back for demobilisation or on leave, and it is regarded, as one of my hon. Friends said just now, simply as the ordinary Englishman's grumble, and is not now regarded—and, I think, ought not to be regarded—as a crime against that Army Act. If you confined it to statements intended to prejudice re-
cruiting, and to do damage to the Army, that is one thing; but to extend it to statements by word of mouth likely, if uttered in the presence of a young fellow who might be likely to recruit, to deter him from recruiting, or likely to make him suspicious of the administration of the Army, and to say that sort of statement may be punished with two years' imprisonment under certain circumstances, that does seem to be going altogether in the direction of Prussianism, and against what we have been accustomed to regard as the distinct rights of free speech. If a man, for instance, as happens almost every day, complains that he has been kept at the front without leave for a couple of years, that when serving in Russia he was often very hungry, that he could not understand the accounts of his pay and allowances, and so on; if a man says what he really thinks about his sergeant-major, or if he says, "You cannot get a job at the War Office without using influence," and that sort of thing—all these statements, if uttered in the presence of some persons who might become recruits, though they are absolute commonplaces, and are said thousands of times a day, might be held, and would be held, by a Court as being likely, though very probably not intended, to prejudice recruiting, or to prejudice the administration of the forces. These things are un-English. Let us continue to be allowed to grumble about these things as we always have grumbled, and let the Army rely for its recruitment and administration on the general knowledge that, in spite of all these statements, their methods are sane and their treatment fair and just, and let people continue to blow off, as hitherto allowed to do, without putting these heavy terms of imprisonment and heavy fines into the Army Act. I am afraid that if the Government cannot modify, at any rate, this Clause which seeks to introduce, for times of peace, powers which have not been found necessary under different circumstances, there is bound to be extremely strong opposition to this Clause of the Bill.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I only wish to add one word to the remarks of my right hon. Friend. I am very glad to see that, having regard to the responsible positions he has held in the Governments of the past, he did not ally himself with the speech made by the hon. Member who sits behind him. I think those speeches are somewhat dangerous, and much to be regretted. When a hon. Member rises in
his place and says, regardless of the Statute, or what may be the Statute, "I propose to defy the Act and I propose to prejudice recruiting"—

Mr. J. JONES: What did Sir Edward Carson do?

Mr. SMITH: —"to make speeches in my Constituency which are intended to prejudice recruiting"—

Mr. JONES: You are one of his followers.

Mr. H. SMITH: I think that doctrine is very dangerous. I regret the observations of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman who followed (Mr. Acland) addressed the House in a very much more dignified and a very much more to be commended manner.

Mr. JONES: Your brother on the Woolsack has said much the same thing.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has anything to say I shall be pleased to call upon him—for he can make a very good speech—and the House will be very glad to hear him, but it is not for him to interrupt another hon. Member in the course of his speech

Mr. JONES: I shall be glad to have the opportunity.

Mr. SMITH: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made. For myself, I think this Clause is such that we should have it amended. But we must not forget that we are living in different times than before the War. We have had five years' experience of the action of the Press and others in spreading disaffection among our troops. We have had some considerable experience of the spread of Bolshevism throughout Europe. For my part, I believe the principle of the Section is sound, but I also believe in the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the criminal Courts of our land no man can be found guilty unless he has a guilty intent. Under this Section a man can be found guilty of spreading disaffection owing to action which may prejudice recruiting though he has no guilty intent at all. That is contrary to the whole of our criminal code. I think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his appeal to the Government to leave out of this Clause the words "or likely" whilst retaining the word "intended." A man should have
that guilty intent which in our criminal code is essential before conviction. There is great weight in what the right hon. Gentleman said. Under present circumstances you can subject to extreme penalties a man who utters these words in an utterly careless manner. Perhaps he has some grievance for the moment with no guilty intent. The penalties under the circumstances are far too great, and the punishment entirely uncalled for. Confine ourselves merely to the word "intended" I am quite certain if that is done that it will commend itself to the general feeling of the House. Certainly it will commend itself to those who are experienced in our criminal Courts. You will obviate what I conceive to be the very great danger of convicting of crime persons who have no criminal intent, but who through mere careless speech or excess of speech, or excitement, perhaps, aroused by some grievance, have been guilty of words which subject them to this penalty.

Mr. BILLING: It seems to me that this may prove to be the thin end of the wedge. It is quite possible that if the House takes this particular Clause lying down that the next Bill we shall be treated to may embody a phrase that any man making a remark or writing any article that is likely to prejudice public opinion against the Government shall be guilty of a crime. I suggest that here where the Englishman is concerned—I cannot speak for Scotsmen or Irishmen—that he has a right to grouse. That is the only redress he seems to receive at the hands of the Government. One is permitted to object to things. There is hardly an hon. Member who has not within the last three months received letters which if handed over to the authorities would render the writers liable to two years' imprisonment. I have received dozens of letters from constituents complaining most grievously of the administration of these Acts, saying that they were most unjustly treated, and were I a young recruit anxious to join the Army many of the letters which I have received would cause me furiously to think. If these men have received this treatment, if they have not got their back pay, if they have suffered these injustices, which I submit cannot be avoided in the general administration of a vast body of men, the small injustices, which are big injustices to the individual who has received them, and if because that man grouses or says to a friend that he
considers that the Army is no good to him or to anybody, he is to be liable to two years' imprisonment, or if this House passes into law a Clause which can be taken advantage of by a military authority to punish such a man, then hon. Members who support such a proposal are lacking in honesty and in appreciation of what has to a very large extent been a safety valve in many of the extraordinary situations which have arisen in this country not only in the last four years, but previously. Very many serious situations have blown over by what I may call a conscientious grouse on the part of the people who have suffered. While we are quite willing to suffer a great deal at the hands of the Government without, shall we say, doing anything which is not constitutional, I consider that if the Government rob the country of the liberty to grouse they will be doing something which will rebound against themselves.

Mr. MACMASTER: I think that this Clause, even though a new one, is well intended, but that it goes too far. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. H. Smith). The two provisos (a) and (b) relate to different subjects. One relates to word of mouth or writing something, and the second refers to the doing of an act. In (a) it is made criminal to spread reports or make statements—that does not mean merely casual conversation in a railway train, because the plurality of the language applies to something more or less of a systematic kind-intended or likely to prejudice the recruiting of persons. "Likely" is a very dubious word to use in a criminal Statute. I agree with my hon. Friend that "intended" is quite sufficient and, for the purposes of this Clause, or "likely" may be omitted altogether. In the same way in (b), if he attempts or does an act calculated or likely to cause disaffection, you might omit the words "or likely." It would then mean that if anything was done by report or writing with intent to prejudice recruiting, or if any act was committed which was calculated to cause disaffection, that person would be subject to trial whether he belonged to the Army or was outside it, because the discipline of the Army should be preserved. I suggest that the difficulty would be overcome by the omission of the words "or likely" in both cases.

Mr. JOHN JONES: I cannot claim to have the technical legal knowledge of some hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion, but I suggest that a person who knows nothing about the law may sometimes understand its effects, and, although knowing of the law, I had to go to gaol for not understanding it. Consequently, I approach this subject from a totally different point of view from that of those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken before me. To me, as an advocate of a national citizen Army, a soldier has equal rights with every other citizen in the State. He should not be subject to special laws which do not operate against his civilian comrade, and if he breaks the law, he should be subject to the same punishment and the same kind of trial as any other subject of the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Possibly you cannot understand me. You have lived a life different from the life that I have tried to live, and I am not sorry for having tried the experiment. I suggest, so far as the punishments contained within this Act are concerned, that if the opinions of the ordinary soldiers were taken into consideration, there would not be many attempts made to justify them by legal quibbling. Disaffection! I have been very pleased to sit here and listen to some Gentlemen who have tried to explain to us about what is meant by disaffection. The right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) was one of the most prominent advocates of disaffection when he did not get a Bill that he wanted, or when he got a Bill that he did not want. He then went to the extent of organising an army for the purpose of resisting an Act of Parliament passed by this House. What, then, is the use of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen getting up and talking about obedience to the law, discipline, and the recognition of authority if those who are in high places, when it does not suit their purpose, become the principle advocates of rebellion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] There is no question about it; it is a fact. I aim not a lawyer, but I suppose facts stand before questions. We want to know exactly where we are. Are the men who joined the Army under the original Military Service Act going to be punished for crimes that they have never committed in law. I ask some of my lawyer Friends to answer—can you legally claim even from the standpoint of your own law that these men who have been kept in the Army against their
will are guilty of these offences? Will you go to your constituencies 2 I am not a lawyer, but I will meet any of you in any of your constituencies and argue the case out before the common citizens of this country, who, after all, are our masters. We have not come here by our own consent, but because the people have sent us. Possibly they made a mistake in sending me—[HON. MEMBEES: "NO!"]—but I want hon. Members—I made a mistake the other evening in calling them gentlemen—to realise the fact. The argument has been put forward this evening that we must maintain discipline. How is it that this discipline does not apply to those in authority in the Army? How many officers have been tied to the gun wheel? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are shot!"] They get shot at when anyone sees them, but they are missed more often than they are seen. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not know what you are talking about! "] Don't I. I may not know the figures in the field, but I do know the figures in the streets. I do know men who have come back who have gone through the punishment, and they tell me the private soldier does not get the same chance of escape as other people get. Some of us have tried our best during the War to do our duty by the country We are not blind; we are not deaf. Our men are coming home and they report back to us as to differentiation in treatment between one section and another. They are not prepared to stand in the future risks they ran during the period of war, and therefore I want to suggest to hon. Members that no penalty ought to be inflicted on the worker who has joined the Army, who is in many cases a conscript soldier against his will, and is kept longer in the Service than was originally intended—no punishment ought to be inflicted on him which does not apply to other members of the organisation of which he is a part. I want hon. Members to understand that some of us on these benches want to know what is going to be done in connection with the administration of the Army in the future. If we are going to have courts-martial—and I understand a Committee has been appointed to inquire into their administration—we want to know if the ordinary soldier is going to have a say or if he is going to have any rights in the administration of them. In our trade union movement in the industrial world we are asking that the man who does the
work shall have some control over the business. We are also claiming that the soldier, who is the main part of the Army, shall have something to say in the administration of the Army in its internal affairs. That may not meet with the approval of hon. Members. We are opposed to the policy contained in this Act—we object to the punishment of a soldier without any say on his part and therefore our party will oppose the Bill to the best of our ability.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I have listened with great interest and a certain amount of sympathy to the remarks of the last speaker and I think he has a little misread the Act in thinking that Clause 12 refers entirely to the Army. It refers to people outside the Army who are endeavouring to seduce the soldier from his duty and from his allegiance to his country.

Mr. JONES: Everybody is fined, whether they are in the Army or not.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: That point, however, does not come into the Bill before us. As one who had the honour of serving in three different battalions in France, I do not think there is anything like the feeling expressed from these benches on the subject. I have always found the very best feeling between officers and men and no resentment on the part of men when they knew they were justly punished. There has, I think, been what I may describe as a very great deal of slush talked in this Debate and the only thing I should like to say is that Clause 12 might be amended by the Government by putting in the words "with hard labour." Two years simple imprisonment is a very inadequate punishment for people who try to destroy the discipline and spirit of the Army. There is one other point in this Bill which I wish to mention, and that is in connection with the billeting prices in the Schedules. I believe it would not be in order to put down Amendments increasing the amount to be paid for billeting, but a great many of these amounts in the Schedule are totally inadequate, and absolutely unfair to the people who have soldiers billeted on them. Take the case of 6d. a day, without meals, but only for lodging; here attendance, coals, candles, etc., all are thrown in for that amount. I have had many complaints from my constituency on this subject, and it is a matter
which the Government should seriously consider, and which should be amended before the Bill goes through. There is the amount of 2s. 4d. per day for billeting a horse, which includes stable room, 10 lbs. of oats, 12 lbs. of hay and 8 lbs. of straw. Ten lbs. of oats alone costs me, at present, 2s. 3d., which leaves 1d. over for 12 lbs. of hay and 8 lbs. of straw, as well as the stable. I only just mention these things as matters which need looking into. This Schedule has come down through the ages with the same old prices. These things want altering, and I hope the Government will look into them during the Committee stage, and will meet them.

Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but I think I must say one word in defence of the commanding officer and other ranks of the Army. The very unfair and, I think, unfortunate speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) implied that the ordinary soldier was very much more hardly treated, and was subjected to very much more severe discipline, than the officers in the higher ranks of the Army. I tell the hon. Member straight out that that is absolutely untrue. I had the honour to serve as a commanding officer during the War, both at home and abroad, and I was just as liable to be tried by court-martial and shot—and very properly so—as any soldier under my command. The hon. Member is absolutely and entirely wrong. No favour would have been shown to me if I had failed in my duty. With regard to other remarks that have been made, I think hon. Members to whom I have had the privilege of listening tonight, rather missed the point. The object of this phrase "liable to," is, I think, only to give power to punish those who are distinctly trying to undermine the discipline of the British Army. The assmption is, as I have heard it argued to-night, that that power will be abused. I can say, as a commanding officer myself, that whenever I asked a man whether he would rather be dealt with by me or go before a court-martial, he invariably said he would rather come before me as his commanding officer, and that I should adjudicate in his case. That is the case all through the Army, whatever the hon. Member and other hon. Members may say. My experience is that the men have absolute confidence in their commanding officers, and have absolute faith in their
fairness and justice. But there are men—you meet them in every walk of life, and you do meet them in the Army I am sorry to say—who not only grouse—I do not mind how much a man grouses: I would rather t encourage him, if he gets it off his chest—but who make up grievances which are perfectly unjustified, and do a great deal of harm in persuading their fellow-men that they are being badly treated when they are not being badly treated. Those are the men for whom this particular Clause is intended. I think I have a better idea of the English people of every class than the hon. Members who have spoken. I believe that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 you will find that, if this Clause is included in the Bill, it will not be abused. English people, from the highest to the lowest, have that sense of justice and fairness to their fellow-men that they can be entrusted with these powers for which the Government ask.

Mr. FORSTER: I have listened very carefully to the various points that have occupied the attention of the House in the course of the Debate, and I can promise that I will discuss them with my right hon Friend the Secretary of State before the Committee stage is entered upon. Although I do not propose to go in detail through the points which have been brought before the House, I should like to say one or two words in regard to Clause 12. Hon. Members who have spoken seem to assume that the days of peril are past. That is not my view. I believe that exceptional, though the powers which are given in Clause 12 may be, they have been justified during the course of the War; and I do not think that we can say now that the outlook is so certain, that the prospect of peaceful days is so sure, that we ought lightly to lay aside provisions of that kind which may be of real value. But I confess that I have been impressed by the views which have been laid before the House with regard to the perhaps unnecessarily wide language in which the powers are taken. In a matter of that kind I do not think there is much difference between the Government and its critics in regard to that point of substance. The point of substance is that when people deliberately set themselves out to prevent recruiting, to poison the minds of would-be recruits, and poison the minds of those who are in the Army, those men deserve no pity, and they ought to be dealt with drastically. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) said that he had no sympathy
with those men who are guilty of the actions I have described. He said, and other hon. Gentlemen have agreed with him, that the language of the Clause was altogether too wide, and might include a whole category of people with whom neither he nor the Government would wish to deal. That is the point of substance. The point of words I am going to discuss with my right hon. Friend between now and the Committee stage. If we are able to arrive at a form of words which would give the Government what they think is essential, without running the danger that is foreseen—I think needlessly—by its critics, I think we should be able to come to a willing agreement.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the words "with lawful intent"?

Mr. FORSTER: I will consider the words. Until I have considered them I will not commit myself. It is not necessary for me to go into the other points. I note the renewal of the objection raised to field punishment No. 1. That will be considered between now and the Committee stage, although I cannot hold out a prospect of change on that matter. I hope we may now get the Second Reading.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday.—[Mr. Pratt.]

GOVERNMENT WORK AT CIPPENHAM.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.